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

[Peter Ross]

Fergus wrote:
> 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?
>
I asked this when Tyson was implementing it and it was an implementation
issue mainly, I am sure Tyson will clarify exactly why.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------