FFI, safe vs unsafe

[Aaron Denney]

On 2006-04-11, Ross Paterson <ross at soi.city.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 09:13:00AM +0100, Simon Marlow wrote:
>>  - the default should be... concurrent reentrant, presumably, because
>>    that is the safest.  (so we need to invert the notation).
>
> I think the name "concurrent" has a similar problem to "safe": it reads
> as an instruction to the implementation, rather than a declaration by the
> programmer of the properties of a particular function; as Wolfgang put it,
> "this function might spend a lot of time in foreign lands".

I'd like to second this.

-- 
Aaron Denney
-><-