I hope this discussion isn't over for good. I was having fun, and function types are definitely worth putting this much thought into, if you ask me. I understand that you could be too busy for a while, but I'll be disappointed if BitC suddenly has finalized design decisions for functions without hearing how this discussion influenced the design.
There was also the "Monads Debate" thread, put off till functions were sorted out, I figure. On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 4:46 PM, Matt Oliveri <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 3, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> wrote: >> It's clear in hindsight that >> we need to be syntactically explicit in these notes, and that we should >> probably use different brackets to do so. I'm in the middle of something at >> the moment. I'll bring forward an annotation for this in my next note. > > I agree. I'm looking forward to an exact-arity-matching syntax we can > agree to use. _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
