On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 12:21 AM, Matt Oliveri <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 3:00 AM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> > wrote: > > But I now think that is the wrong approach, and it further turns out that > > all my noise about static definitions was wrong. We *do* need to be able > to > > determine arity given type, but we do *not* need to worry about the cases > > whose arity we cannot statically determine. > > Interpreted literally, that sounds like a contradiction... Yeah. I wrote that really badly. What I was saying was: we can syntactically infer arity at all statically visible definitions, and if we treat it as a form of specialization, it will turn out that all of the abstracted arities get solved by specialization.
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
