[m-rev.] for review: state vars syntax sugar

[Peter Schachte]

Ralph Becket wrote:

> But Mark is correct: the documentation should come first, then we can
> have the syntax war...

Oh, good, more syntax wars!

To put in an early shot in the upcoming battle, I think Peter Hawkins had a
good point:  these aren't just any old pairs of arguments, they form a thread.
 As such, the initial inst of the first arg must match the final inst of the
second.  We should be able to take advantage of that.  Also, the initial inst
of the second argument should probably always be free (any counterexamples?).
And the final inst of the second argument should either be the same as the
initial, or possibly dead.  So from 2 modes, 4 insts, we can almost drop that
down to a single inst.  That seems much nicer than having to specify a pair of mode

-- 
Peter Schachte              I worry that 10 or 15 years from now, [my child]
schachte at cs.mu.OZ.AU        will come to me and say 'Daddy, where were you
www.cs.mu.oz.au/~schachte/  when they took freedom of the press away from
Phone: +61 3 8344 1338      the Internet?' -- Mike Godwin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------