[m-dev.] Fw: Re: Impurity annotations on clauses

[Julien Fischer]

On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Ralph Becket wrote:

> Julien Fischer, Tuesday, 23 January 2007:
>>
>> I don't think we should take && as the sequential conjunction operator.
>
> Well, it's "natural" in the sense that's C uses.

I don't thnk it's that natural for Mercury, after all we use `&' for
parallel conjunction.

>> (It would be more natural as the parallel conjunction operator.)  &> was
>> another suggestion - it has the advantage of indicating that there
>> is some directionality involved.
>
> It also looks like Perl.

That's a suitably damning criticism ;-)

> I'd rather have a named operator (`seq_conj'?) than &>.

seq_conj would fine with me - I can't actually see it being used too
often.  We could then use seq_disj for sequential disjunction.

Julien.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
mercury-developers mailing list
Post messages to:       mercury-developers at csse.unimelb.edu.au
Administrative Queries: owner-mercury-developers at csse.unimelb.edu.au
Subscriptions:          mercury-developers-request at csse.unimelb.edu.au
--------------------------------------------------------------------------