On 15 Feb 2015 19:29, "Geoffrey Irving" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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
In this case "fn" would appear to be a comonad? Is a comonad a better choice than a monad? > > Yep, I also like that syntax. > > > 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. > > Given the complexity of this thread, I'd also learn towards explicit: > "f 1" would not be legal. Yes, this seems sensible, so lambdas have to be explicit... Keean.
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
