On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 12:45 AM, Matt Oliveri <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. I disagree. Or rather, (a) these are just a variant notation for my variables-on-arrows notation, and (b) if the variables-on-arrows are not type variables, than effect variables aren't type variables either. But why do we really care what kind of variables these are so long as we know how they work? shap
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
