FFI, safe vs unsafe

[Taral]

On 3/29/06, Simon Marlow <simonmar at microsoft.com> wrote:
> If we were to go down this route, we have to make reentrant the default:
> 'unsafe' is so-called for a good reason, you should be required to write
> 'unsafe' if you're doing something unsafe.  So I'd suggest
>
>   unsafe
>   concurrent unsafe
>   concurrent          -- the hard one
>   {- nothing -}

Can I suggest "sef" in this? Most cases of "unsafe" are actually
claims that the call is side-effect free.

--
Taral <taralx at gmail.com>
"You can't prove anything."
    -- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem