On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 11:11 PM, Matt Oliveri <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > I do not believe that > > parenthesizing the application is a good choice, because in an expression > > like > > > > ((f a), (g b)) > > > > where g has arity 1, the programmer cannot tell whether the parens are > > forcing a curried call or merely serving to override the usual precedence > > rules (in this case, on g, unnecessarily). Offhand, I think I would > prefer > > some form of operator for this. > > Is this referring to my proposal? There is no curried call in ((f a), > (g b)). Yes, it was, and yes, there was. The example above was given in the context of your example (it may have been Geoffrey's). In that example, /f/ was an arity-2 function and /g/ was an arity-1 function. So the first parenthesization inside the tuple is doubling as grouping and as indicating a partial (curried) application. Perhaps I misunderstood you, but I had thought you were suggesting this use of parenthesis to indicate that partial application was intentional. shap
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
