{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreihyas2jptrzay7zxifn45nrzfioxs5uj7u4kmnglb4mktwwsmupba",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:pi6woz4d47bkuws673w2il2r/app.bsky.feed.post/3mnwsqtoufbd2"
  },
  "path": "/t/haskells-missing-mutable-reference-type/14248?page=2#post_30",
  "publishedAt": "2026-06-10T12:56:21.000Z",
  "site": "https://discourse.haskell.org",
  "textContent": "tomjaguarpaw:\n\n> Do you mean I shouldn’t use `IOScopedRef` (if it existed) to get the behaviour I desire\n\nNot exactly, my point is that tacking dynamic allocations onto this feature is at best unnecessary and at worst would pollute the language with a second way to do something it already excels at.\n\nA static reference table is the “missing” thing in the language as I see it.\n\ntomjaguarpaw:\n\n> With “references”, the libraries providing `Logger` and `writeUserData` need not know anything about the existence of “references”. Only the caller need use them.\n\nI don’t think this has anything to do with whether the references are static or dynamic, you can wrap the library either way.",
  "title": "Haskell's missing mutable reference type"
}