On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:46 AM, 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.
I haven't really caught up on this thread, but I find this statement rather weird, in that sometimes we know the type of a value without knowing the value itself until somewhere down the partial evaluation process... in this cases we generate a dummy placeholder value where the dummy and the actual value have the same type, and it appears like there is a reading of this where the dummy, and the actual value need not share a calling convention? _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
