On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 6:47 AM, Matt Oliveri <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Maybe that's the right way to think about it for type inference. But I > still think of cfns as the real types, and afns as an indirect way of > denoting them. Far be it from me to comment on what passes for your thought process... or mine, for that matter. :-) shap
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
