On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 1:44 AM, Geoffrey Irving <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Matt Oliveri <[email protected]> wrote: >> I think the "fn" is really ugly and I'd like to talk about whether >> it's needed, and if so, what we can do instead. > > I don't believe "fn" is needed in terms of grammar ambiguity. It > doesn't generate ambiguity in terms of general CFGs, and even if we > were to restrict ourselves to a LALR(1) parser the "a b c -> d" syntax > can be parsed by treated it as arity 1 and then unwrapping any bare > juxtapositions on the left hand side.
What occurred to me is that unless we enforce a naming convention, "a b c -> d" could mean ((a b c) -> d), thinking "a" will turn out to be a type constructor. We could do something like with term-level application, and require parens to force parsing "a b c" as a constructor application before "->". _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
