[m-dev.] for review: update state transformation

[Peter Ross]

On 30-Mar-2000, Ralph Becket <rbeck at microsoft.com> wrote:
> > From: Peter Ross [mailto:petdr at cs.mu.OZ.AU]
> > 
> > On 29-Mar-2000, Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs.mu.OZ.AU> wrote:
> > > 
> > > Is there some reason why they can't be written as just
> > > 
> > > 	:- promise all [A,B,C] ( A * B = B * A ).
> > > 	:- promise all [A,B,C] ( (A * B) * C = A * (B * C) ).
> > > 	
> > > ?
> > > 
> > > If so, I think it would be a good idea to document that reason.
> > 
> > There is no good reason apart from the fact that it isn't implemented.
> > I also believe it would be more difficult to match on the = 
> > form as you no longer have the <=> to divide the LHS and RHS.
> 
> Couldn't one just translate  `all Vars (LHS = RHS)' into
> `all [X | Vars] (X = LHS <=> X = RHS)' and proceed as
> usual?
> 
Yes, however I would feel more comortable if the code recognised the
general case where the code has been converted into superhomogenous
form.

Pete
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------