On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 6:35 PM, Ben Karel <esc...@gmail.com> wrote: > If you encode arity in function types, with whatever concrete syntax you > might care for, then why does using the syntax for curry-style application > of multi-argument (== single-tuple, given arity info (?)) functions present > problems? >
We're talking past each other here, and this seems worth sorting out. For purposes of this note, please ignore my hair-brained "middle position" idea. The premise in this thread was that we were going to adopt both curry-style application and curry-style (i.e. arity-less) function definitions, and that we would retreat to tuples in those applications where a known calling convention was required. shap
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list bitc-dev@coyotos.org http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
