Re: new ForeignPtr without finalizers

Alastair Reid <[email protected]> wrote,

> Manuel:
> > In other words, it seem much more likely that one would
> > partially apply `newForeignPtr' to a finaliser than to a
> > pointer that is to be finalised.  But this is a minor point.
> 
> Having written some more ffi code over the last couple of days, I agree that 
> this is much more natural so, even though it will break all the packages I 
> released in the last week, I now vote for swapping the argument order.

This is the last outstanding issue.  Shall we swap?  I am
torn.  The swapped argument order seems more appropriate,
but it will break code.  Shall we have one more breakage
before it's all frozen?

Manuel