On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Matt Oliveri <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 10:14 PM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> > wrote: >> If I am not mistaken, Keeans' enumeration of possible arities is intended to >> be a deep enumeration. I think he's mistaken, because the return type 'r can >> unify with a function type and thereby extend the arities. But assuming that >> does not occur, his enumeration seems reasonable. > > The enumeration of deep arities was mine. I only took the format from > Keean. In my understanding, the reason why an abstract return type > doesn't change things is because of the maximum arity, which it seems > we also disagree about.
No, that's wrong, sorry. I got the arity enumeration right though because I said r was a metavariable for a concrete non-function type. _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
