Proposal: Stop enforcing single-writer-multi-reader file access
Bas van Dijk
v.dijk.bas at gmail.com
Thu Oct 27 18:09:38 CEST 2011
On 27 October 2011 17:55, Max Bolingbroke <batterseapower at hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 27 October 2011 16:31, Bas van Dijk <v.dijk.bas at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Should a Haskell' proposal be filed?
> Ian mentioned this issue in the GHC ticket at
> http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/4363. He says:
> I think the next step should be a Haskell' proposal to remove the
> locking from the report (including a clarification that a no-locking
> implementation is possible on Windows).
> Some people might argue that we should have an implementation first, though.
> So I guess we are seeing this patch as part of an "implementation
> first" approach.
Right and to be clear, I'm totally fine with it.
It does create the situation that once this change gets released in a
new base package, the haskell2010 package will loose Haskell 2010
compatibility because it depends on base for its IO functions. We
could then of course add custom IO functions to haskell2010 that are
compatible with Haskell 2010. However I think it's best to just
quickly change the Haskell 2010 report and have a short period where
the haskell2010 package is incompatible with Haskell 2010.
More information about the Libraries