[m-rev.] field syntax (was: smart recompilation)

[Ralph Becket]

> From: Peter Ross [mailto:peter.ross at miscrit.be]
> Sent: 03 July 2001 09:10
> I agree, though maybe you want to name them
> 
>     '= foo'
>     'foo :='
> to make it clearer which is a setter and getter.

I agree with Peter.

Also, if we're preparing to change the field syntax, I'd
like to reconsider the field access function transformation.
Personally I've found the argument ordering to be problematic
when writing higher order code and have not come across any
situations where I would have had to worry about taking the
address of a multi-mode function etc.  Nor have concerns about
referential transparency raised their heads.

Anybody else feel similarly?

- Ralph
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------