On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:22:07PM -0700, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote: > Hmm. It occur to me that there may be a "middle position" on arity handling. > We could *record* the arity information for purposes of type computation, > but *disregard* it for purposes of type compatibility. [..] > Does this smell like it might work? If so, then the whole thing becomes > purely a matter of surface syntax.
It sounds as though it could work, but what's the purpose? If the programmer is worried about the heap then surely you *want* to be warned that you're going to be allocating a closure, if you start doing the above then you loose this complaint from the type system. I think a "magic" typeclass/something else that knows how to do the appropriate lifting would be nicer. At least it's explicit that way. -- Sam http://samason.me.uk/ _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
