I really want to implement some prototypes before further discussion, but that led to needing some improvements in my tools.
My plan is to have a language with both arity - abstract types (will look like normal curried function types) and arity - concrete types looking like multi - parameter arrows. Then a second language with just the arity - concrete types, and specify the mapping from one to the other. I'll update you when I have something presentable. Keean. On 9 Mar 2015 22:53, "Matt Oliveri" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
