On 3 March 2015 at 14:30, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 2:05 PM, Matt Oliveri <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > I certainly don't want to. What I can convince the parser to accept >> > > f a b c > > > 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 >> > > Please explain how the type unification rules have any bearing at all on > what the parser can be made to *parse* as an unambiguous syntactic > construct. > > Given the problems I had with it in the BitC v0 parser, I'm not yet > convinced that I can get the parser to accept the curried-style application > syntax. It's a PARSE problem, not a type problem. > What are your requirements for the parser? Keean.
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
