darcs patch: Remove unsafeCoerce-importing kludgery in favor
ashley at semantic.org
Thu Jun 14 03:37:03 EDT 2007
John Meacham wrote:
> This is why I think an 'Unsafe.*' would be a bad idea. it would be a
> dumping ground for lots of routines with nothing in common other than it
> made someone uncomfortable at some point.
Isn't this a good idea? I want to know about this "uncomfortableness"
especially if I can use such "uncomfortable" routines to segfault my
> I mean, think if all the
> ByteString functions dealing with pointers had to move there because you
> might pass in a bad pointer.
They should be moved there, shouldn't they? All the unsafe stuff is in a
single module, Data.ByteString.Base. What's the purpose of this module?
Wouldn't that purpose be better served if it were put in Unsafe.*?
It's more helpful to me when reading a program to see the red flag
"import Unsafe.ByteString" rather than the apparently innocuous "import
> We really need to stop using the terms 'safe' and 'unsafe' so much
There seems to be a clear dividing line (with, of course, FFI stuff on
the "unsafe" side).
But I guess it depends on your vision of the language: do you consider
unsafePerformIO to be Haskell? At least with FFI you need to pass a flag
to switch it on.
More information about the Libraries