On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Matt Oliveri <[email protected]> wrote: > - Matt Rice keeps bringing up SML records, and I'm not sure why. (Sorry, > Matt.)
No apology necessary really I probably should though, since i in general suck at explaining In general the places I use currying are more for partial specification of type, that is the type of some subprogram (function) is a partial specification of the type of the caller, and this usage is trivially done without allocation with e.g. real hygenic macros... from the discussion focusing on currying syntax, and the focus on partial application of expressions on some value, It seems like we may get that but still lack partially typed subprograms, which is what I find important in the whole thing, if it allows me to write these curried accessors without the allocations, and in that sml case it shows a) how this feature of sml complicates the whole matter through functions which return and accept abstract types as parameters that can only become concrete through further passed parameters later in the chain b) how it leads to unfamiliar types of errors. that is I don't much care about curried style function application except as it pertains to the curry-howard correspondance and typing through usage _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
