[m-rev.] for review: abstract insts and modes for .int3 files

[Julien Fischer]

Hi Zoltan,

On Wed, 20 Mar 2019, Zoltan Somogyi wrote:

> For review by anyone. The main thing I am seeking feedback on
> right now is the syntax.

I think the syntax in the diff is fine.

> In the longer term, we may want to make abstract insts and modes a
> user visible part of the language, for which the syntax in this diff
> is NOT suitable; does anyone have a syntax that IS suitable? And would
> user visible abstract insts and modes be desirable anyway?

Abstract insts seem desirable, the current situation when declaring
insts for abstract types is quite clumsy.  Is the proposal from section
4.5 of dmo's thesis (still) workable?

I can't really see a case for user visible abstract modes; can anyone
else?

> The diff is with -b.

That looks fine.

Julien.