On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 3:48 AM, William ML Leslie <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
Yeah. _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
