On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 9:11 AM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> wrote: > 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?
I just mean that the kind of thing you instantiate one with isn't a type. _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
