On 12 February 2015 at 19:46, William ML Leslie < [email protected]> wrote:
> On 12 February 2015 at 19:27, Matt Oliveri <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'm not sure what you're saying we should infer for the (f x y) >> example. That could either be a 2-application, or two 1-applications, >> if they had the same syntax. That's why I proposed writing two >> 1-applications like ((f x) y). >> > > Calling convention is a property of a value (of f), rather than of an > application. A value supports one native arity, although it can be > converted to another. > Oh, that's your argument: make call an operation, much like `foo()()` is distinct from `foo()` and `foo`. So, there's no currying as a syntactic convenience. That is one way, I guess. -- William Leslie Notice: Likely much of this email is, by the nature of copyright, covered under copyright law. You absolutely MAY reproduce any part of it in accordance with the copyright law of the nation you are reading this in. Any attempt to DENY YOU THOSE RIGHTS would be illegal without prior contractual agreement.
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
