On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 1:21 PM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> wrote: > All: > > I certainly don't want to shut anybody down, but I think we've gotten to the > point in this discussion where further issues may be best revealed by trying > to implement what we have. The main new thing we have recognized since my > last summary is that the arity really does need an explicit "slot" in the > function type syntax. That's very helpful, because we had sort of known this > and then forgotten about it.
I actually feel kind of shut-down. Maybe I waited too long to reply, but I'm still not clear on the details of the arity specialization business. I have another question in the wings, but the one I asked about arity-indexed families vs. constraints is conceptually prior. Your email sounds like a conclusion, but I couldn't actually tell for sure: you are indeed planning to implement arity specialization? _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
