Still playing with ATS and I was wondering why the template system was implemented as it was instead of as a compiler switch to just monomorphise polymorphic stuff. Is there some significant usage case where these two approaches differ? Or is it somehow easier/better for the compiler to have explicit templates? Or does monomorphisation run into problems when combined with dependent types? Very curious as to what the answer is.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ats-lang-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/ats-lang-users. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/ats-lang-users/274d1ea8-f6f7-4317-9340-65046b561c6f%40googlegroups.com.
