[m-rev.] For revew: a new, improved pretty printer

[Peter Ross]

On 8/2/07, Mark Brown <mark at csse.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
> On 02-Aug-2007, Zoltan Somogyi <zs at csse.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
> > On 02-Aug-2007, Ian MacLarty <maclarty at csse.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
> > > I was thinking of something like:
> > >
> > >     % Comment about t.
> > >     %
> > > :- type t
> > >
> > >         % Comment about f1.
> > >         %
> > >     --->    f1(...)
> > >
> > >         % Comment about f2.
> > >         %
> > >     ;       f2(...).
> >
> > I thought of that. The problem I see is that if the "comment about f1" is
> > long, it makes the connection between t and f1 harder to see.
>
> Exactly.  That's what I meant about the start of "comment about f1" being
> near the start of f1 -- comments of this nature are often many lines longer
> than the thing being commented on, so putting the comment second will
> generally minimise this distance.
>
Isn't that statement also true for predicate declarations as well?

Also what about when the data constructor has many fields, and hence
below the data constructor is a long way from the begin of the data
constructor?

> I vote for updating the standard.
>
I don't have a strong opinion either way, before or after, just a
couple of things that occurred to me.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
mercury-reviews mailing list
Post messages to:       mercury-reviews at csse.unimelb.edu.au
Administrative Queries: owner-mercury-reviews at csse.unimelb.edu.au
Subscriptions:          mercury-reviews-request at csse.unimelb.edu.au
--------------------------------------------------------------------------