On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 2:47 AM, Keean Schupke <[email protected]> wrote: > On 13 Mar 2015 06:30, "Matt Oliveri" <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 2:18 AM, Matt Oliveri <[email protected]> wrote: >> > If it would instead be parenthesized >> > like this: >> > (a->(b->c))=>((d->(e->f))=>r) >> > >> > then it seems basically the same as my afn notation, but with the >> > arity variables elided. >> >> Wow, that was misleading. (b->c) and (e->f) look like types, but I was >> confirming that they're actually not in this case, just tails of the >> lists of arguments for the groups. But even then, who writes lists >> that way? So that's probably not what it should be, to answer my own >> question. But how about >> (a->b->c)=>((d->e->f)=>r) > > Just to note, this is not far from the notation I was using earlier: > > a b c -> d e f -> r > > However I am treating an arrow as an operator that can take multiple left > parameters, so parens would be: > > (a b c -> (d e f -> r))
Actually, I'm starting to suspect Shap _did_ mean for it to be fully right-nested. That is, both my guesses in the email you quoted are wrong. But anyway, I've now made it painfully clear I don't know how to parse Shap's mixed arrow notation, so he'll tell us what he has in mind. _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
