[m-rev.] for review: atoms in the debugger

[Zoltan Somogyi]

On 08-Jan-2002, Mark Brown <dougl at cs.mu.OZ.AU> wrote:
> So I agree that "^r" would be a good way to access the return value.

I have implemented things so that ^r, ^ret and ^return can all be used
to access the return value.

> Another alternative, which may be easier to implement, is to treat
> the return value as argument 0.  This has the advantage that the same
> number is used for any function, regardless of arity.  It also fits the
> way that functions are often used in goals:
> 
> 	Z = f(X, Y)

Adding ^0 as a synonym for ^r would be trivial to implement. Do people think
it is a good idea?

> Finally, it means that we could stick with the usual abbreviation of
> terms as Name/Arity, without (IMHO) being misleading about the browser
> commands available.

Abbreviating function calls as func/arity+1 is not misleading any more;
the /arity part says that ^1 through ^arity will work, and the +1 promises
^r will work.

Zoltan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------