[m-dev.] for review: tuples [1]

[Ralph Becket]

This is great - I was about to suggest something like this.  It'll
be quite handy for higher-order code (e.g. I've occasionally wanted
list__foldl3, and once even list__foldl4.)

Also, another vote for the rationalisation of the equality/definition
symbols.  Would it be possible to just add == as an alternative to ::
for mode definitions - or is this already the case?  I seem to recall
Fergus saying something to the effect.

Ralph
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
mercury-developers mailing list
Post messages to:       mercury-developers at cs.mu.oz.au
Administrative Queries: owner-mercury-developers at cs.mu.oz.au
Subscriptions:          mercury-developers-request at cs.mu.oz.au
--------------------------------------------------------------------------