Proposal: Use uninterruptibleMask for cleanup actions in Control.Exception

Bardur Arantsson spam at
Thu Sep 4 16:09:04 UTC 2014

On 2014-09-04 18:03, Eyal Lotem wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 6:16 PM, Eric Mertens <emertens at> wrote:
>> I'm -1 until it becomes clear that it is actually an issue in common code.
> I think you're missing an important point.
> A) Cases that were not interruptible will remain the same.
> B) Cases that were interruptible *were bugs* and will be fixed.
> You're claiming that B is rare, but I don't think it is a valid argument
> against this change, because whether or not you agree B is frequent or not
> -- the change only affects B and not A. So the question is whether the
> change is desirable in this circumstance.

I'm in *no* way an expert on the finer points of concurrency in Haskell,
but if the above is true, then +1.


More information about the Libraries mailing list