[m-rev.] for review: constrained polymorphic insts

[David Overton]

On Tue, Mar 12, 2002 at 01:06:48AM +1100, Fergus Henderson wrote:
> On 07-Mar-2002, David Overton <dmo at cs.mu.OZ.AU> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 21, 2002 at 06:40:38PM +1100, Fergus Henderson wrote:
> > > The line `Inst = Inst0' throws away information; the compiler knows that
> > > Inst is at least as ground as InstVar, and is a subtype of InstVar,
> > > but these facts are not recorded in the inst returned.
> > > Is this going to cause trouble?
> > > Maybe there should be an XXX comment there.
> > 
> > I don't think this is likely to be a problem in practice because
> > 
> > 	a) I don't think it's likely to occur very often with the
> > 	   sorts of things I'm expecting this feature to be used for; and
> > 	b) Even if the information is retained somehow, I can't see what
> > 	   sort of situations it would actually be useful for.
> 
> OK.  But there should still be an XXX comment, IMHO.

Okay.  I will add the above text as an XXX comment.

Do you have any other review comments, or are you happy for me to commit
this now?


David
-- 
David Overton      Computer Science and Software Engineering
PhD Student        The University of Melbourne   +61 3 8344 9159
Research Fellow    Monash University (Clayton)   +61 3 9905 5779
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------