Tommy Thorn wrote:
>
> Koen Claessen:
> > This brings us to another issue. Doesn't the following definition look
> > a bit awkward?
> >
> > R{ x = x }
>
> Definitely wierd. The left and right-hand side denotes two different
> things, which AFAIK is the only place where `=' behaves like this.
Koen Claessen:
> This brings us to another issue. Doesn't the following definition look
> a bit awkward?
>
> R{ x = x }
Definitely wierd. The left and right-hand side denotes two different
things, which AFAIK is the only place where `=' behaves like this.
Wouldn't `<-' have been a better cho
| > * R{x} constructs a record, and is equivalent to R{x=x}
| > * r{x} updates the x field of record r, and is equivalent to r{x=x}
| > * R{x} can be used as a pattern; its meaning is not defined by the
| > report, but is presumably supposed to be the same as R{x=x}
This brings us to anoth
