[mercury-users] Re: can one_solution/2 and unsorted_solutions/2 be det?
fjh at cs.mu.oz.au
Fri Oct 31 22:00:02 AEDT 1997
Lee Naish wrote:
> Fergus wrote:
> >In fact Mercury does allow the programmer to fix both the search rule
> >and the computation rule. The Mercury language reference manual documents
> >that implementations must support a strict sequential (left-to-right)
> >operational semantics. The current Mercury implementation supports
> >this with the `--strict-sequential' option. You can also get more
> >fine-grained control with the `--no-reorder-conj', `--no-reorder-disj',
> >and `--fully-strict' options.
> Last time I was involved in discussion of these, `--no-reorder-conj' did
> not guarantee no reordering (it just prevented unnecessary reordering).
> I suggested the meaning should be changed. Was this done?
I agree that this would be a good idea, it is just not a high priority
at the moment. The existing `--no-reorder-conj' option is still useful, even
if the name is perhaps a bit misleading; it gives a fixed computation rule.
> Does `--strict-sequential' really guarantee no reordering (ie, will the
> compiler produce an error message if left to right ordering is not "well
Fergus Henderson <fjh at cs.mu.oz.au> | "I have always known that the pursuit
WWW: <http://www.cs.mu.oz.au/~fjh> | of excellence is a lethal habit"
PGP: finger fjh at 220.127.116.11 | -- the last words of T. S. Garp.
More information about the users