[m-dev.] semantics with any insts

[Ralph Becket]

Peter Schachte, Friday, 31 March 2006:
> But in the absence of any insts, the old declarative names are
> appropriate; it's only the introduction of any insts that drove a
> wedge between the declarative reading and the procedural one.  Where
> there *are* any insts, using names that talk about choicepoints would
> make sense.  But I don't think it should be wrong (or even warned
> about) to declare a constraint pred to be nondet, even if it doesn't
> leave a choicepoint.

My personal intuition is that this reading of the determinism categories
is wrong, but I'll have to think about it more deeply before saying
more.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------