On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 2:33 AM, Keean Schupke <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hmm, actually representing arity as a datatype doesn't make sense if you > allow curries application of type constructors, in which case even > application of the tuple constructor could be curried. > Yes. It's always struck me as odd that functions in OCaml/Haskell were curried while type constructors were not. There are various places where the languages have different rules at the expression level than at the type level. This seems to be one of them. Yet in a truly higher-order language, one would think that curried type-level functions (which is to say: constructors) would be perfectly fine... shap
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
