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

[Zoltan Somogyi]

On 09-Jan-2002, David Overton <dmo at cs.mu.OZ.AU> wrote:
> > Adding ^0 as a synonym for ^r would be trivial to implement. Do people think
> > it is a good idea?
> 
> I think it would be less confusing for users not to have ^0 as an
> alternative.

I agree. Any other opinions?

> > 
> > > 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.
> 
> Then why not write it as "func/arity+r" rather than "+1"?

I think that would be ugly, and not really helpful. I think f/n+1 says well
enough that besides the n arguments, there is one extra value that can be
printed.

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