[m-dev.] Re: univ and functor/arg

[Tyson Richard DOWD]

> Fergus wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> 		However, if you think of `univ' as conceptually defined
> by
> 
> 	:- type univ == some [T] T.
> 
> then the current behaviour of functor/3 etc is correct.
> I'm not sure if that conceptual definition of univ as an equivalence
> type really makes any sense, but pragmatically it seems to work better,
> so at least for the moment I think I will stick with the existing behaviour.

Given this, is the behaviour of type_ctor_and_args still correct?

	% type_ctor_and_args(Type, TypeCtor, TypeArgs):
	%       True iff `TypeCtor' is a representation of the top-level
	%       type constructor for `Type', and `TypeArgs' is a list
	%       of the corresponding type arguments to `TypeCtor',
	%       and `TypeCtor' is not an equivalence type.