On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 11:31 PM, Keean Schupke <[email protected]> wrote:
> Not sure why you need arity inference, type inference I have done works > fine without it. Any given function name generally has the same arity in > all versions, so you know the required arity from the function definitions. > You don't need the arity during type inference. > What you say is only correct if the procedure being applied can be statically resolved. But in (say) _map_, the arity of the passed function must be inferred from the body of the _map_ implementation. shap
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
