[m-rev.] For review: change the way we handle inst any non-locals in negated contexts (again)

Mark Brown mark at cs.mu.OZ.AU
Fri Dec 16 11:59:50 AEDT 2005

On 16-Dec-2005, Julien Fischer <juliensf at cs.mu.OZ.AU> wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Dec 2005, Mark Brown wrote:
> > > The impression I received further back in this thread was that we didn't
> > > want to allow the promise_* annotations on the predicate declarations
> > > for exported predicates.
> >
> > No, we just didn't want to *require* them.  They would still be allowed
> > on exported or non-exported declarations alike -- the compiler should still
> > accept them -- but as Ralph pointed out it would generally be bad style
> > to actually use them on interface declarations (in the same way that it
> > would be bad style to expose implementation details in any of the numerous
> > other ways that would be possible).
> >
> Yes, so why add another way of exposing implementation details?

Because it has other reasons to exist.  Forcing people to use a bad style
is one thing -- we obviously shouldn't do that -- forcing them to *not* use
bad style is generally beyond our control.

I'm interested in anyone else's opinions on the use of promises in
pred/func declarations.


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

More information about the reviews mailing list