[m-rev.] for review: insts for type constructors

[Zoltan Somogyi]

On Sun, 04 Oct 2015 17:34:04 +1100 (AEDT), "Zoltan Somogyi" <zoltan.somogyi at runbox.com> wrote:
> > > +        % We *should* do two kinds of replacements on _ItemInstDefn0.
> > > +        %
> > > +        % (1) If inst i1's body contains inst i2, and i2 has been defined
> > > +        % to be equivalent to some other inst i3, then we should replace
> > > +        % i2 with i3 in i1's body. We haven't ever done this, and it is
> > > +        % a bit surprising that it has never been a problem so far.
> > 
> > It isn't that surprising.  Most Mercury programs I'm aware of either don't
> > define their own insts or, if they do, are not very ambitious about what
> > insts they define (since being ambitious in this respect tends to run into
> > limitations of the mode checker :-( )
> 
> That is why I said "a bit".
> 
> I will construct a test case after I commit this diff, and fix the bug if it is one.

It is not a bug. I updated the comment and added a test case.

Zoltan.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Log.inst_alias
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 227 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.mercurylang.org/archives/reviews/attachments/20151007/dc08bddb/attachment.obj>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DIFF.inst_alias
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 3872 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.mercurylang.org/archives/reviews/attachments/20151007/dc08bddb/attachment-0001.obj>