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

[Peter Ross]

Simon wrote:
> On 04-Jul-2001, Tyson Dowd <trd at cs.mu.OZ.AU> wrote:
> > For one thing, it makes the .NET mapping nicer, as we can generate a get
> > and set property for foo = and foo :=
>
> .NET should be irrelevant to this discussion. We should not be
> designing high-level language features based on implementation
> details of one of the back-ends. That sort of thing is what
> pragmas are for.
>
I disagree, we should use the appropiate mapping of a mercury feature to the
back end feature.  Currently this is not possible on the .NET backend
because we have no way of distinguishing between a normal function and a
function which represents a `get' field access.

I believe that the compiler should be able to distinguish between a normal
function and one that is meant to be used as field access function.  It just
so happens that this is useful for the .NET backend.  There may be other
cases where this is useful.

Pete

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