On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 12:42 PM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 10:09 AM, Geoffrey Irving <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> The main >> issue I see is that arity abstract functions are not first class in >> that they can't be stored in data structures. That makes certain >> kinds of functionality programming less intuitive, since it means >> libraries designed around arity abstract functions would force users >> into somewhat unintuitive allocations for many kinds of callback code >> (even if these allocations were explicit). > > > For mutated (therefore monomorphic) slots, I agree with what you are saying.
Why can't there be a mutable slot of an arity-abstract type? I mean, implementation-wise, I see why it cannot exist, but what is it in the proposal that prevents it? (Guess: Arity-abstract types are actually constraints on quantified arity-concrete types, and BitC won't support quantifiers under other type constructors. Or even if it does, there's no way to make a function with multiple native arities.) _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
