[m-users.] inst question
post at volker-wysk.de
Thu Jul 28 21:45:55 AEST 2022
I've implemented that workaround and was able to get rid of most of the
"unexpected" calls in my program by constraining input parameters with
Thanks for your answers.
Am Donnerstag, dem 28.07.2022 um 12:04 +0200 schrieb Volker Wysk:
> Am Donnerstag, dem 28.07.2022 um 13:51 +1000 schrieb Zoltan Somogyi:
> > 2022-07-28 13:34 GMT+10:00 "M McDonough" <foolkingcrown at gmail.com>:
> > > > What I don't understand, is why is the instantiatedness of LinkParts in line
> > > > 35 "bound(link_parts(ground))" and not
> > > "bound(link_parts(bound(left(ground)))" ?
> > >
> > > You need to declare a mode which uses the inst you defined.
> > He did, because ...
> > > :- mode lpleft_in == lpleft >> lpleft.
> > > :- pred fsf2(link_parts::lpleft_in, io.io::di, io.io::uo) is det.
> > ... the mode "in(lpleft)" in Volker's code expands to "lpleft >> lpleft".
> > > A pred that requires a certain input inst which works this
> > > way can be annoying to use, as to go from an `in` link_parts in this
> > > example you would need to write a disjunction and then destructure and
> > > construct a new link_parts with an either of left, there isn't an
> > > automatic way to do this without writing it out.
> > I think this "destructure and construct" is what Volker is missing.
> Yes, that's it.
> > The root cause of Volker's issue is the fact that the Mercury compiler
> > does not track aliases (which has been the topic more than once
> > on m-users). In this case, the code that Volker wrote
> > LinkParts = link_parts(left(_)),
> > fsf3(LinkParts, !IO)
> > is seen by the compiler as
> > LinkParts = link_parts(V1),
> > V1 = left(...),
> > fsf3(LinkParts, !IO)
> > (The compiler breaks down all unifications into primitive forms,
> > none of which contain more than one function symbol, before doing
> > any semantic checking on the program.)
> > After mode analysis processes V1 = left(...), the compiler obviously
> > knows that V1 is bound to left/1. But, by then the compiler has
> > already forgotten that V1 is an alias for the first argument of link_parts
> > in LinkParts, so it does not know that the success of the V1 = left(...)
> > unification affects the inst of LinkParts in any way.
> This makes it clear.
> > However, if you
> > construct a new version of LinkParts, called say LinkParts2, from V1,
> > the compiler *will* know that LinkPart2's first arg is bound to left.
> Yes, got it. My little test program works now. Thanks!
> users mailing list
> users at lists.mercurylang.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the users