On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 12:00 AM, Matt Oliveri <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. Well, I really meant it that I don't mean to shut this down. If there are still questions, let's work through them! I'm pretty sure this will work, but it certainly wouldn't be the first time you all have saved me from a major mistake! shap
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
