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

[Fergus Henderson]

On 21-Jun-2001, Simon Taylor <stayl at cs.mu.OZ.AU> wrote:
> On 04-Jun-2001, Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs.mu.OZ.AU> wrote:
> > On 28-May-2001, Simon Taylor <stayl at cs.mu.OZ.AU> wrote:
> > > @@ -3871,7 +3782,7 @@
> > >  
> > >  add_annotation(empty, no, none).
> > >  add_annotation(empty, yes(Mode), modes([Mode])).
> > > -add_annotation(modes(_), no, mixed).
> > > +add_annotation(modes(_ `with_type` list(mode)), no, mixed).
> > >  add_annotation(modes(Modes), yes(Mode), modes(Modes ++ [Mode])).
> > >  add_annotation(none, no, none).
> > >  add_annotation(none, yes(_), mixed).
> > 
> > Why is the explicit type annotation needed here?
> 
> Ambiguity with the field extraction function for the `modes' field of
> `recompilation__item_id_set'.

Can someone remind me what the rationale was for allowing field
extraction functions to use the `Field(Object)' syntax in addition
to the `Object ^ Field' syntax?

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