On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Geoffrey Irving <[email protected]> wrote: > What is the conclusion on supplying more arguments than the function > arity?
No conclusion yet. > Will it be something like > > (f a b) c d > > to call a function with type (a b -> (c d -> e))? *If* we adopt the quasi-curried syntax, then it would be perfectly legal to write: f a b c d The reason this works is something that I think of as "left arrow erasure". Basically, the types: a b -> c d -> e a b c d -> e are the same type. But in truth, if I could figure out how to re-extract multi-argument procedures at the implementation level easily enough, I'ld probably revert to single argument procedures at this point. _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
