[m-rev.] for review: std_util__arg_name

[Michael Day]

> which appears to be correct. I didn't test it on tuples or ints or other
> types though. Shall I back out the change?

When applied to an N tuple it returns an empty list of argument names,
rather than a list of N nos as you might expect. It fails when applied to
ints, which is correct I believe (the same behaviour as get_functor/5).

Michael

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