On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:35 PM, Matt Oliveri <[email protected]> wrote: > I am pleading that you not speak in terms of consequences for curried > whatever all the time. It's more complex than necessary, and it makes > it sound like you might've introduced some new type constructor where > we legitimately need to deal explicitly with the possibility of > currying.
That. But you can talk about consequences for curried whatever as long as it's clear that 1) the thing you're talking about is a curried whatever, not simply a whatever 2) it's a consequence, and not part of the language definition and hopefully 3) you've said the actual rules that it's a consequence of _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
