[m-rev.] For review: solver-types

[Ralph Becket]

Zoltan Somogyi, Thursday, 22 July 2004:
> 
> It looks to me as though this design is insufficiently factored out.
> I don't see why you don't have the solver information restricted to the
> solver_type alternative, instead of requiring a runtime check on every access.
> Now that there is a separate solver_type alternative, the solver info
> part of the special_type_details should always be "no" for du_type and
> foreign_type, no?

You're right (and looking back, that's even on my TODO list.)

> Bunding the solver info with unify and compare info is OK for the
> parse tree, but not for the HLDS.
> 
> I should have other comments tomorrow; don't commit before you get them.

Righto - thanks.

-- Ralph
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------