On 24 February 2015 at 21:29, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> wrote > > upcast1_1to2 f = \x y.(f x) y >> downforce2to1_1 f = \x.\y.f x y > > > The downforce example, at least, is a trivial lambda having no escaping > closure. That one is okay. The upcast example uses a lambda whose closure > escapes. That one is *not* okay. >
I am surprised either of these are problematic, they are just function definitions? Are there restrictions on how you can use lambda's in BitC? Keean.
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
