[m-rev.] for review: predicate equivalence type and inst declarations

[Simon Taylor]

On 13-Mar-2002, David Overton <dmo at cs.mu.OZ.AU> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 11, 2002 at 03:49:00PM +1100, Simon Taylor wrote:
> > 
> > Estimated hours taken: 40
> > Branches: main
> > 
> > Allow declarations of the form
> > :- pred p `with_type` higher_order_type `with_inst` higher_order_inst.
> 
> When we start using `:' for type qualification, it would be nice to
> support syntax something like this:
> 
> 	:- pred p : higher_order_type :: higher_order_inst.
> 
> Is there any reason why `::' couldn't be used instead of `with_inst'
> now?

We still allow mode declarations of the form
	:- mode in :: ground >> ground.
so predicate mode declarations using `::' rather
than `with_inst' would be ambiguous.

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