FW: [mercury-users] Records

[Lee Naish]

In message <19991108141700.B3035 at cs.mu.oz.au>Peter Schachte wrote:
>Also, it would make perfect sense to pass a member access
>function as argument to a higher-order function.

>Basically, I'm arguing that we should look at member access as just a
>function call.

Higher order is an excellent argument in favour of this, in my opinion.
Why invent a different concept for what is a (particular kind of)
function?  You will inevitably want the analogue of higher order code
which passes field-access-thingies around just like functions.

And as ROK pointed out, you want to be able to group more than one field
modification together.  For higher order this should be an instance of
function composition.

You might want to invent syntactic sugar, compiler pragmas (inlining
comes to mind), etc, but the underliying abstraction should be
functions.

	lee
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
mercury-users mailing list
post:  mercury-users at cs.mu.oz.au
administrative address: owner-mercury-users at cs.mu.oz.au
unsubscribe: Address: mercury-users-request at cs.mu.oz.au Message: unsubscribe
subscribe:   Address: mercury-users-request at cs.mu.oz.au Message: subscribe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------