Unsafe aspects of ByteString

Lennart Augustsson lennart at augustsson.net
Mon Jan 29 16:31:06 EST 2007

Some function in the interface *MUST* be tagged unsafe.  The current  
situation is very
anti-Haskell.  I don't care how efficient it is.  First and foremost  
it must have pure
Haskell semantics, otherwise it doesn't belong as a pure function.

	-- Lennart

On Jan 28, 2007, at 23:58 , Tim Docker wrote:

> dons at cse.unsw.edu.au wrote:
>> The functions should document this behaviour better. Of course,  
>> you're
> paying with poke and C strings so you
>> should be careful anyway. I'll correct the documentation to explain
> all this.
> Forgive a non-experts comment:
> This approach ("read the doco and be careful when you use these
> functions") feels contrary to the haskell ethos of pure code being
> reliably pure. What's the argument for not prefixing such functions  
> with
> "unsafe"?
> Tim
> _______________________________________________
> Libraries mailing list
> Libraries at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/libraries

More information about the Libraries mailing list