proposal: add 'unsafeCoerce'

[Robert Dockins]

On Friday 10 November 2006 17:43, Samuel Bronson wrote:
> On 11/10/06, Ashley Yakeley <ashley at semantic.org> wrote:
> > kahl at cas.mcmaster.ca wrote:
> > > I'd much prefer Data.Unsafe.
> >
> > I'd like to see all unsafe function in an Unsafe.* hierarchy (possibly
> > consisting only of the single module Unsafe). Thus one could avoid
> > unsafety altogether by avoiding the Unsafe and Foreign hierarchies.
>
> Couldn't you just avoid using functions having "unsafe" as a name
> prefix? Its not like they have names like "inocuousPerformIO" or
> anything!

It would be nice to be able to disallow all unsafe code by managing module 
imports.

Suppose I want to run untrusted code.  If I can verify that it doesn't use 
FFI, that it uses no unsafe primitives, and that it typechecks, then I know 
it is _unconditionally_ typesafe.  If I can disallow unsafe primitives by 
just limiting the Unsafe.* and Foreign.* modules, that's a big win.  If I 
instead have to keep a list of unsafe functions, that's not so good.

So, I guess count this as another vote for Unsafe.*


-- 
Rob Dockins

Talk softly and drive a Sherman tank.
Laugh hard, it's a long way to the bank.
       -- TMBG