On 26 February 2015 at 09:01, Keean Schupke <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 25 February 2015 at 14:29, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Unless your proposal is that we prohibit function types as values or >> parameters, so that the definitions are always statically resolvable? >> >> > No, my argument is that it is safe to allow it, if it is statically > resolvable. It seems if we can statically resolve the concrete arity of > the function definition, then its okay to do this rewrite. > > Native arity itself is statically resolvable in Keenan's scheme exactly where it is needed: where the call operation is. No templating involved, which is a nice feature. -- William Leslie Notice: Likely much of this email is, by the nature of copyright, covered under copyright law. You absolutely MAY reproduce any part of it in accordance with the copyright law of the nation you are reading this in. Any attempt to DENY YOU THOSE RIGHTS would be illegal without prior contractual agreement.
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
