On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 2:40 PM, Matt Oliveri <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 11:01 AM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Aside: > > I hope you don't mind if I reply to this, which risks turning into a > main branch of the discussion. > Actually, Matt, I *do* mind. I was very clear here that even I had problems with my explanation. It was an explicit acknowledgement that I was engaged in a non-productive and likely wrong set of assumptions and notions. I do not understand why your frustration meter is set to 20 on a scale of 10 this morning, but I'm not the enemy. It seems to be a pattern that when you get frustrated with a discussion you become more confrontational. We all make that mistake once in a while. It's not the end of the world. But please take a step back, take a deep breath, and calm down a little. Your contributions here are tremendously valuable, but they *never* arise from your moments of frustration, because those moments don't lead to effective communication. > > Only after > > the types unify will we learn the return type of f and be able talk about > > the next specialization step. > > But this is only true in the seemingly-irrelevant sense of the > concrete function's return type. No matter how many concrete > applications (f a b c) turns into, the return type we care about is > simply the type of that expression. We can talk about that right away, > if only via a type variable. Indeed, that type variable may be > instantiated to a function type, and have its own arity concretize > before f's arity does. Or at least it seems like an unnecessary and > yucky proof obligation to assume otherwise. This is the sense in which > instantiation is not guaranteed to proceed from left to right. > Yes, Matt. And this problem is exactly what I was acknowledging when I wrote that the unifications happen logically in parallel. The whole point of my email was explaining that I had my head on backwards. > Also, I should point out that if you allow regrouping, then of course > this whole explanation is completely screwed. > Can you please explain what you mean by "regroup"? > > > No new proposition or conclusion here. Just an explanation of why I keep > > getting stuck in this way. > > Shap, for all I know, in your proposal, you _should_ be getting stuck > that way. That's how confused you've gotten me. > I believe that is substantially what I said. Applying a mallet and a chisel to my head to ensure that I noticed may not have been necessary. shap
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
