[m-rev.] for review: list__sort_and_remove_equivs/3

[Fergus Henderson]

On 06-Sep-2002, Mark Brown <dougl at cs.mu.OZ.AU> wrote:
> As I mentioned earlier, we apparently assume that Compare(X, Y, (=))
> implies X = Y, so the above inconsistency is not an issue.  I'm prepared
> to make the changes required, but I need some feedback on the following:
> do we wish to keep this assumption or throw it out (I vote for the latter)?

Historically, I think the reason that this assumption arose is
just that the code for the versions that take a user-defined
comparison was cut-and-paste from the versions that don't,
without properly checking what assumptions they made.

In other words, this assumption was an accident, not deliberate,
and was always unwarranted.  Definitely we should throw it out
(as you have done in the diff that you just posted).

-- 
Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs.mu.oz.au>  |  "I have always known that the pursuit
The University of Melbourne         |  of excellence is a lethal habit"
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh>  |     -- the last words of T. S. Garp.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------