On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 6:15 PM, Matt Oliveri <atma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So (tc 'a) would just mean 'a, which we're saying we want a tc instance
> for.
>
> That makes sense, but I don't love it. It looks like tc is a type
> family then. (Well maybe not in your syntax, it wouldn't.) Also, it
> can look asymmetric, when the situation actually isn't:
> (tc 'a -> 'a) and ('a -> tc 'a) both mean (tc 'a => 'a -> 'a), I gather.
Yeah. There are a whole lot of reasons to dislike it. Which is part of why
we *didn't* put it in to BitC. But the number of discussions we've had here
and on various whiteboards where it has been convenient to write:
'a \ tc 'a
as a shorthand for "'a such that there is an instance to tc 'a" is really
large...
shap
_______________________________________________
bitc-dev mailing list
bitc-dev@coyotos.org
http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
