[m-rev.] for review: reserve builtin inst and mode names

[Zoltan Somogyi]

On Mon, 24 Aug 2015 15:34:27 +1000 (AEST), Julien Fischer <jfischer at opturion.com> wrote:
> > However, the addition of the hardcoded/builtin_inst_rename test case,
> > in 2003 for HAL, indicates that at *some* point, *someone* wanted this
> > flexibility, though I have no idea why. (At least a fully qualified
> > reference to the reused name would not be easily confusable
> > with the builtin, for readers of the code.)
> 
> Presumably because things in HAL had very similar names?   It hardly
> matters now in any case since HAL is not an on going thing.

The real question is: what were the *reasons* why HAL had similar names,
and are they possibly valid now, for other projects?
 
> > Any opinions? And any opinions about doing the same for type definitions?
> > E.g. should a user module be able to define ":- type int ---> ..."?
> 
> Builtin types: yes.

Yes to which sentence? Yes, do the same for type defns, or yes,
users *should* be able to define :- type int ---> ...?
 
> Standard library types: definitely not (just in case you were thinking
> of that too!)

From this, it seems you mean the former. Can you confirm that?

Zoltan.