[m-rev.] field syntax (was: smart recompilation)
Simon Taylor
stayl at cs.mu.OZ.AU
Sat Jun 23 16:18:32 AEST 2001
On 23-Jun-2001, Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs.mu.OZ.AU> wrote:
> 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?
`Object ^ Field' is just a synonym for `Field(Object)'. I think the
only argument was that the `Object ^ Field' syntax was a bit redundant.
Simon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
More information about the reviews
mailing list