Proposal: Use uninterruptibleMask for cleanup actions in Control.Exception
Bardur Arantsson
spam at scientician.net
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 gmail.com> wrote:
>
[--snip--]
>> 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.
Regards,
More information about the Libraries
mailing list