[m-rev.] diff: cleanup, and question for fjh or dmo

[Fergus Henderson]

On 23-Dec-2004, Zoltan Somogyi <zs at cs.mu.OZ.AU> wrote:
> The one bit that is interesting is in inst_util.m, in the first clause
> for abstractly_unify_inst. The two lines marked with *** below show that
> ModuleInfo0 is accessed even after ModuleInfo0 is updated to ModuleInfo1.
> I have preserved the existing behavior, but I would like to know whether
> anyone (especially Fergus or David) knows whether this is a bug, a
> deliberate but undocumented decision, or simply a choice that doesn't
> matter.

You're asking me about code written more than 10 years ago now (this
piece of code was added in 1994 in revision 1.46 of modes.m).

But having had a look at the code, I'm pretty sure that this is a choice
that doesn't matter.

-- 
Fergus Henderson                    |  "I have always known that the pursuit
                                    |  of excellence is a lethal habit"
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh>  |     -- the last words of T. S. Garp.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------