Re: Hat bug report: Ambiguous occurrence `List'

On 30-Jun-2004, Malcolm Wallace <[email protected]> wrote:
> The problem here is that the Hat transformation introduces three
> replacement definitions for the original function: a worker, a
> wrapper, and an atom.  The worker is used on the RHS of the wrapper
> definition, and the atom is used on the RHS of the worker definition.
> These RHS usages should be qualified for disambiguation.  Thus,
> hat-trans ought to check whether a top-level variable is already
> in scope at its point of definition, and if so, qualify those newly
> introduced uses.

Another possible alternative would be _always_ qualify the newly introduced
uses, regardless of whether the variable is already in scope or not.
Perhaps that would require less new plumbing?

Cheers,
	Fergus.

-- 
Fergus J. Henderson                 |  "I have always known that the pursuit
Galois Connections, Inc.            |  of excellence is a lethal habit"
Phone: +1 503 626 6616              |     -- the last words of T. S. Garp.