Geoffrey:
The syntax for types may need multiple arguments to the left of *any*
arrow. So, for example, we might see
x y z -> a b -> w
Note that this is merely a syntactic variant on my original proposal, which
would write this as:
fn x y z -> fn a b -> w
OK. So let's now assume this notation for a second. Are we still permitted
to do a curry-style application? That is, given
def f x y = ... returning z
is the application
f 1
acceptable (assuming the first parameter type admits int)? To put this
another way, are we doing implicit lambda insertions to satisfy coercions
here, or are we requiring explicit insertion? I think that (at least for
now) it should be explicit.
shap
_______________________________________________
bitc-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
