On 16 February 2015 at 20:49, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> wrote:
> Per the previous summary, one option we are still considering is: > > 1) Functions take N>0 argument patterns and return 1 result. Such > functions have arity N. > 2) The type of a function is written as something like fn ty1 ty2 ... tyN > -> result > 3) We adopt a surface syntax for function call that appears curried, in > that no parentheses or commas are involved in the application syntax. > > In any case, do people agree that this ambiguity of interpretation exists, > and that the type-driven AST rewrite is not somehow unclean? Does anybody > want to make the case that an arity-agnostic abstract function type is a > bad idea? > Are we saying arrows only take one left parameter and one right, so they remain a binary operator on types, and that 'fn' builds an "argument pack", like this: (fn a b c) -> d Keean.
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
