[m-dev.] for review: type_info/[01] saga continues.

[David Glen JEFFERY]

On 10-Aug-1998, Tyson Dowd <trd at cs.mu.OZ.AU> wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Fergus and I discussed this change on Friday.
> Could someone check it?
> 
> It was causing problems in particular with type_name, because
> type_name was seeing through the equivalence (which isn't really
> what we wanted).
> 
> 
> ===================================================================
> 
> 
> Estimated hours taken: 0.5
> 
> Make std_util:type_info/0 different to private_builtin:type_info/1.
> 
> library/std_util.m:
> 	Although std_util:type_info/0 is equivalent to
> 	private_builtin:type_info/1, we want to make this equivalence
> 	opaque, so we will reuturn std_util:private_builtin to its
> 	previous defintion.  Of course it is still implemented as the
> 	same type.

Is there any reason that you can't just implement it as:

:- type private_builtin:type_info(T) ---> type_info(std_util:type_info).


love and cuddles,
dgj
-- 
David Jeffery (dgj at cs.mu.oz.au) |  Marge: Did you just call everyone "chicken"?
PhD student,                    |  Homer: Noooo.  I swear on this Bible!
Department of Computer Science  |  Marge: That's not a Bible; that's a book of
University of Melbourne         |         carpet samples!
Australia                       |  Homer: Ooooh... Fuzzy.