On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Keean Schupke <[email protected]> wrote:
> Okay, so I think I am convinced on this point. For an arity-concrete type > the applications must not be less than the required arity. But presumably > we are okay the other way around where I write: > > f a b c > > for a function : fn 1 'a -> fn 1 'b -> fn 1 'c -> 'd, we are not going to > force people to write: > > ((f a) b) c > I certainly don't want to. What I can convince the parser to accept as non-ambiguous syntax remains to be seen. shap
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
