Does that mean you dislike the (-> a) => (unit -> a) replacement? If not, the syntax adjustment should be minimal.
Sorry for not catching it earlier. :) Geoffrey On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> wrote: > Damn! I *really* wish somebody had asked this yesterday. Completely > obvious but I'm now most of the way through a useless re-syntax. > > Bother. > > Thanks for catching this as quickly as you did, though. > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 8:16 AM, Geoffrey Irving <[email protected]> wrote: >> If we adopt currying syntax for function application, what will be the >> notation for calling a zero-argument C function? >> >> One option would be to map zero-argument C functions to unit -> a, and >> forbid zero argument functions in the type system. I think the >> calling conventions are operationally the same (or at least >> compatible), so this wouldn't require any wrapper code. >> >> Geoffrey >> _______________________________________________ >> bitc-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev >> >> > _______________________________________________ > bitc-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev > _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
