FFI, safe vs unsafe

[Simon Marlow]

On 11 April 2006 17:49, Aaron Denney wrote:

> 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.

I agree.  So other suggestions?  longrunning?  mightblock or mayblock?

I don't much like 'nonreentrant', it's a bit of a mouthful.  Any other
suggestions for that?  nocallback?

Cheers,
	Simon