On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 9:52 PM, Matt Oliveri <[email protected]> wrote:
> I understand what you're thinking with that, but it seems too > Haskell-ish for BitC. To think that a function application that > doesn't yield an instance of F is not really a function call probably > would seem like complete bull crap to systems programmers. That's because it *is* complete bull crap. [Sorry - couldn't resist.] You either called a function or you didn't. Whether that function has side-effects or not is completely orthogonal to whether you called it. Either way I needed to know the arity to perform the call. > Keep in mind that if you want the F convention to be doing anything, > you'll have to forbid partially applied F's that escape. > Yes. Or at least introduce an explicit syntax for them that amounts to lambda injection. shap
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
