On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 10:18 AM, Keean Schupke <[email protected]> wrote:
> > How is > > f :: fn 'a -> 'a > > Ambiguous? Its a function that is passed a single argument, whether it is > curried or uncurried does not make any difference. Does it? > It does not. But it's a non-illustrating example. For contrast, the type fn 'a -> 'b *is* ambiguous, because it can get specialized to fn 'a->'c->'d which is arity-abstract. Regardless, we have had enough different notations flying around in this thread that I think it would help us to stick to a single consistent notation while we are finishing the present discussion. shap
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
