Return-Path: <john.harrison-request@uk.ac.cam.cl>
Delivery-Date: 
Received: from ted.cs.uidaho.edu (no rfc931) by swan.cl.cam.ac.uk 
          with SMTP (PP-6.4) outside ac.uk; Fri, 5 Feb 1993 11:12:01 +0000
Received: by ted.cs.uidaho.edu (16.6/1.34) id AA15253;
          Fri, 5 Feb 93 03:01:50 -0800
Sender: info-hol-request@edu.uidaho.cs.ted
Errors-To: info-hol-request@edu.uidaho.cs.ted
Precedence: bulk
Received: from swan.cl.cam.ac.uk by ted.cs.uidaho.edu (16.6/1.34) id AA15248;
          Fri, 5 Feb 93 03:01:43 -0800
Received: from guillemot.cl.cam.ac.uk (no rfc931) by swan.cl.cam.ac.uk 
          with SMTP (PP-6.4) to cl; Fri, 5 Feb 1993 10:57:25 +0000
To: info-hol@edu.uidaho.cs.ted
Cc: Tom.Melham@uk.ac.cam.cl, vac@gov.nasa.larc.air16
Subject: message on sticky types (cont'd)
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 93 10:57:13 +0000
From: Tom Melham <Tom.Melham@uk.ac.cam.cl>
Message-Id: <"swan.cl.ca.143:05.02.93.11.00.51"@cl.cam.ac.uk>


I meant to add to my previous message that the reason that
Victor gets the behaviour


     #set_flag (`sticky`,true);;
     false : bool

     #set_sticky_type(`A`,":num -> bool");;
     () : void
     
     #"A t";;
     Indeterminate types:  "A:?1 -> ?2"
     
     evaluation failed     types indeterminate in quotation

is that even though the variable "A" has sticky type ":num->bool", it
is partially constrained in the quotation to have a type of the form
"?1 -> ?2", hence the sticky type is not used.

Tom