[m-dev.] for review: represent bugs directly

[Mark Anthony BROWN]

Fergus Henderson writes:
> 
> On 23-Feb-2000, Mark Anthony BROWN <dougl at cs.mu.OZ.AU> wrote:
> > Represent bugs directly rather than with edt nodes.
> 
> What's the rationale?  Why is that better?
> 
For consistency with the rest of the interface between the
analyser and the diagnoser.  Questions are also represented
directly rather than with edt nodes; the analyser gets a
(monomorphic) question from a (polymorphic) edt node by calling
one of the mercury_edt methods, and passes it to the diagnoser.
After this change, bugs are passed to the diagnoser in much
the same way.

I've added the following to the top part of the log message:

+ This makes the
+ interface to the analyser more consistent: bugs are now handled
+ in much the same way as questions.

Cheers,
Mark.
-- 
Mark Brown, PhD student            )O+  |  "Another of Fortran's breakthroughs
(m.brown at cs.mu.oz.au)                   |  was the GOTO statement, which was...
Dept. of Computer Science and Software  |  uniquely simple and understandable"
Engineering, University of Melbourne    |              -- IEEE, 1994
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------