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

[Ralph Becket]

>From Simon Taylor on 12/12/2000 01:23:55
> > One possibility is to stick with the status quo and have
> > 
> > 	Map ^ lookup(Key)
> > 	Map ^ set(Key) := Value
> 
> The last time you suggested this, Peter Schachte wrote:
> > I wouldn't write "Map ^ lookup(Key)", as that doesn't really make
> > sense.  You're not fetching lookup(Key) of Map.  I think "Map ^
> > element(Key)" or maybe "Map ^ elt(Key)" makes more sense and reads
> > better.

It doesn't make sense if you think of Map ^ lookup(Key) as fetching a
field, but it seems to me more appropriate to think of it as invoking
a method on Map.

> `lookup' and `set' also won't work because of the argument ordering issue.

I think they do work with policy (1).

> There doesn't semm to be any real consensus, so I'm just going to pick
> one. `elem' doesn't seem to be totally offensive to anyone, so I'll
> stick with that.

Sounds fair 'enuff.

--
Ralph Becket      |      MSR Cambridge      |      rbeck at microsoft.com 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------