On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 6:38 AM, Matt Oliveri <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 9:11 AM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
Right. I think it's actually a little easier to understand how this all relates to unification with the variables-on-arrows notation, though per my note just previously that variable has something similar to boolean kind. In fact, now that I frame it that way I'm now thinking that CFNs and AFNs are merely two different instantiations of a common abstract type. shap
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
