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

[Fergus Henderson]

On 03-Jul-2001, Ralph Becket <rbeck at microsoft.com> wrote:
> 
> 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?

I don't understand exactly what you're proposing here;
could you spell it out in more detail?
-- 
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------