[m-rev.] for review: mix mercury code with foreign_proc

[Fergus Henderson]

On 30-Jul-2001, Tyson Dowd <trd at cs.mu.OZ.AU> wrote:
> Allow foreign_proc clauses to replace Mercury definitions.
> Or alternately viewed, allow the compiler to fall back on Mercury
> definitions of procedures if a suitable foreign_proc clause is unavailable.
> 
> (This is only possible with mode-specific Mercury procedures).

I just discovered a problem with this extension:
it doesn't work for zero-arity procedures, because there's
no way to write a mode-specific clause for a zero-arity procedure.

What was the rationale for only allowing this with mode-specific
Mercury clauses?  Is it just an implementation issue?

-- 
Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs.mu.oz.au>  |  "I have always known that the pursuit
The University of Melbourne         |  of excellence is a lethal habit"
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh>  |     -- the last words of T. S. Garp.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
mercury-reviews mailing list
post:  mercury-reviews at cs.mu.oz.au
administrative address: owner-mercury-reviews at cs.mu.oz.au
unsubscribe: Address: mercury-reviews-request at cs.mu.oz.au Message: unsubscribe
subscribe:   Address: mercury-reviews-request at cs.mu.oz.au Message: subscribe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------