On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 3:23 AM, Keean Schupke <[email protected]> wrote: > Hmm but that variable does not follow normal unification rules. Its not a > type variable, but looks like a kind of expansion variable?
Right, variables like ?ar are not type variables. We haven't finished deciding exactly what they are. (We have multiple working options.) The unification rules might not be too bad, because you never end up with anything but a plain variable in the surface syntax. But they're not like unification for HM arrows. What is an expansion variable? I found a couple of papers by Sebastien Carlier, and from one of the abstracts, it doesn't sound like what we're doing. Conceptually ?ar is some type-level information about the concrete arity an afn has. The only reason an afn is truly arity-abstract is because its arity parameter is a variable. > We agree that arity-aware types break paretricity right? I don't see why. _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
