[m-rev.] for review: promise scopes (part 1)

[Zoltan Somogyi]

On 21-Mar-2005, Julien Fischer <juliensf at cs.mu.OZ.AU> wrote:
> > Julien and I are of the opinion that inside a promise_[semi]pure scope,
> > the annotations should be optional and that adding extra scopes with
> > names like promise_pure_with_implicit_annotations would be overkill.
> 
> Actually, my opinion is that purity annotations shouldn't be optional,
> my point was that *if* they are made optional then adding extra
> scopes with names like the above would be overkill.

But those are not the only options. A name such as "pure_implicit"
wouldn't be any longer than "promise_pure"; better names surely exist.
I don't think I want to lose the distinction between prefixes required
and not by allowing only the latter. The difference can be implemented
as a single boolean in the item and in the HLDS goal.

> I don't really want things changed at all, but I suspect
> that I may be in the minority here.

You aren't.

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