On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 6:54 AM, Matt Oliveri <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 9:08 AM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 4:56 AM, William ML Leslie > > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Unification is really the wrong word to describe what we are doing > during > >> arity specialisation. Function types of concrete arity only unify with > >> themselves. Arity-abstract function types also unify only with > themselves. > >> They may be specialised, in which case a substitution is performed, but > this > >> substitution is not term for term but term for a specific variable. > > > > > > Yes. > > I don't understand. Can't we unify (cfn 'a 'b->'c) with (afn 'a > 'b->'c) to get (cfn 'a 'b->'c)? Why is this not a unification? It is. When I wrote "yes", I was differentiating unification and specialization in my head, and it was only after that reply that the "cfns are really n-arrows" thought came back to my mind. Sorry for the mix-up. shap
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
