On 12 Feb 2015 14:57, "Jonathan S. Shapiro" <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. >
If map is in the same module, you have the body definition. If it is in a different module you should have the type signature. Keean. _______________________________________________ > bitc-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev >
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
