On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Pal Engstad <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > It seems to me that you are confusing the rather abstract “application” from > functional languages and what I call a (function) “call”.
I also proposed using "application" vs. "call". There's nothing technically wrong with calling a "call" an "application", but it may be confusing to use "application" for multiple kinds of function type in the same discussion. > Would it perhaps be better to use [] brackets to indicate C-like calls. In > other words: > > f [a b] is a call to a function f by two arguments. I could go with that. > f a b simply means the application of f, a and b. It could mean either > > 1) f [a b], or > > 2) f [a] [b] ó (f [a]) [b], or > > 3) any eta-expansion of the application (the eta-expansion rule is [\x > . f x ó f]). I don't think we should be using an arity-abstract application notation until we also say how the type system is going to handle it. > Applications do not have arity. Calls do have arity. We can only talk about > arity when an application has been translated to a number of calls. Well, if "application" is different from "call", then we should wait till we get to it to talk about whether it has a notion of arity. > Does this help? Probably, at least a little. Thanks. _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
