[m-dev.] for review: improvements for record syntax

[Simon Taylor]

Fergus wrote:
> On 07-Dec-2000, schachte at cs.mu.OZ.AU <schachte at cs.mu.OZ.AU> wrote:
> > I guess on balance, I'd still argue for policy (1) with the known
> > function name restriction, and add the apply_front builtin (preferably
> > for all arities >= 1) later so the restriction can be dropped.
> 
> I still prefer proposal (1) [with or without the function name
> restriction] to proposal (2), because of the argument ordering, even
> though `^' is not referentially transparent, and does not correspond
> quite so directly to `apply'.

I don't think I'll ever be convinced that proposal (1) is a good idea.

This change appears to be contentious enough that it shouldn't go in
the release. Unless there are any objections, I will just commit the
part of my change which changes the name of field update functions
from 'field:=' to 'field :='.

Simon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------