On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
I don't think this is a parsing issue. (f a b c) would infer you a type for f: fn 'arity 'a->'b->'c->'d which unifies with fn 1 'a -> fn 1 'b -> fn 1 'c -> 'd So no problem. _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
