[m-dev.] for review: improvements for record syntax

[Simon Taylor]

Ralph Becket wrote:
> >From Fergus Henderson on 08/12/2000 05:51:19
> > I'd still like to hear Ralph's opinion, to see if he too is convinced
> > by this argument.
> 
> So far we have:
> policy (1) where X ^ f(Y, Z) is sugar for f(X, Y, Z) and
> policy (2) where X ^ f(Y, Z) is sugar for f(Y, Z, X)
> 
> The `horridness' associated with (1) is based on a false premise,
> namely that
> > So `Y = f(A), X ^ Y' means `Y = f(A), Y(X)', i.e. `f(A)(X)' or `f(A, X)',
> > not `f(X, A)'.
> In the first place, Y = f(A), X ^ Y should expand to f(A)(X), *not* f(A, X).

Why are they not equivalent?

> So, (a), (b) and (c) are all different things.  Policy (2) does *not* 
> provide that  `X ^ f(Y)'  =  `F = f(Y), X ^ F'  as is claimed (as far as 
> I've understood the discussion).

I don't understand how you reached that conclusion.

Simon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
mercury-developers mailing list
Post messages to:       mercury-developers at cs.mu.oz.au
Administrative Queries: owner-mercury-developers at cs.mu.oz.au
Subscriptions:          mercury-developers-request at cs.mu.oz.au
--------------------------------------------------------------------------