On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Keean Schupke <[email protected]> wrote:
> I guess one could consider a set of pre-defined resources passed as a > context to a co-monad, as opposed to a set of generated effects, but I at > least understand what is going on in the monadic case better. So I would > probably prefer: > > x y z -> Fn (a b -> Fn w) > > to > > Fn x y z -> Fn a b -> w > > but I would be persuaded otherwise... > >From a parsing perspective, the reason that the infix -> notation works in OCaml/Haskell is that all functions have arity 1. In a language having a variable number of arguments, clean parsing requires some form of bracketing keyword. This is true in the same way that LET acts as a leading bracketing keyword in LET <binding*> IN <body> Going back to *your* syntax, I confess that I am puzzled. It appears to me that the "Fn" in this notation appears, by necessity, on the right side of every arrow. If so, then isn't it syntactically redundant? shap
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
