[m-rev.] For review: change the way we handle inst any non-locals in negated contexts (again)

[Ralph Becket]

Mark Brown, Friday, 16 December 2005:
> 
> Forcing people to use a bad style
> is one thing -- we obviously shouldn't do that -- forcing them to *not* use
> bad style is generally beyond our control.
> 
> I'm interested in anyone else's opinions on the use of promises in
> pred/func declarations.

I take Mark's position: make promise_<purity> a purity annotation just
as impure and semipure are.

We could appease Julien by making the compiler issue a warning for
exported pred/func decls with promise_<purity> annotations.

We still need promise_<purity> declarations for mode-specific clauses.

Can I suggest we introduce a more general

:- promise <thing>.

to the language, rather than a whole pile of

:- promise_pure ...
:- promise_semipure ...
:- promise_impure ...

etc?

I think we should do some spring cleaning and migrate promise
declarations to `:- promise' forms.

Other things, such as foreign_procs, should not be pragmas.

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