On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Matt Rice <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
I think if i could amend this I think i'd say what i've been trying to get across, is It seems to me entirely that the allocation-requirements are a structure of usage and not necessarily of the arity of the initiating call, and thus fixing this as curried application syntax is the 'low hanging fruit', given the length of messages corresponding to this low hanging fruit though I should probably give up :) _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
