[m-rev.] For review: user-configurable pretty printer

[Peter Ross]

On 6/6/07, Ralph Becket <rafe at csse.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
> Ralph Becket, Wednesday,  6 June 2007:
> > The drawback is that it makes the interface more complicated:
> > - adding a new pretty printer also involves specifying the corresponding
> >   type_ctor_desc, e.g.:
> >
> >     add_user_defined_pp(type_ctor(type_desc(_ : map(unit, unit))),
> >         pp_map, !IO)
> >
> >   (we need to supply types for map in order to avoid a warning; I've
> >   used unit, but it's all rather ugly) rather than just
> >
> >     add_user_defined_pp(pp_map, !IO)
>
> A thought occurs: what about this,
>
>         add_user_defined_pp("map", pp_map, !IO)
>
> where "map" is the type constructor name for the type handled
> by pp_map.  The name would be used to hash to the list of type-
> specific pps, which would be tried in turn until the value in
> question is converted to docs.
>
> - Is this horrible?
> - If not, should we include the module name?  The type arity?
>   Personally I think the type name should suffice.
>
Who is responsible for passing the name "map" the user, or is it done
automatically?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------