diff: Fix bug in modechecking of non-local lambda vars

[Fergus Henderson]

On 09-Feb-1998, Andrew Bromage <bromage at cs.mu.OZ.AU> wrote:
> G'day all.
> 
> Fergus Henderson wrote:
> 
> > > +		% XXX This test is too conservative.
> > > +		%
> > > +		%     We should allow non-local variables to be non-ground
> > > +		%     if they are dead after this unification.  In addition,
> > 
> > Why only if they are dead after this unification?
> > Why not always?
> 
> I suppose it depends what you consider to be a violation of variable
> locking.  This requires some thought.

Yes, indeed!

I thought about it quite a bit, without coming to any firm conclusions,
but I think you might be right.  How about we change the comment to
something non-commital, such as that below?

		%     We should allow non-local variables to be non-ground
		%     if they are dead after this unification
		%     (and perhaps even if they are not dead after this
		%     unification -- or would that be unsafe?).

-- 
Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs.mu.oz.au>   |  "I have always known that the pursuit
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh>   |  of excellence is a lethal habit"
PGP: finger fjh at 128.250.37.3         |     -- the last words of T. S. Garp.