On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> wrote: > So I think that another viable proposal here is to decide that a function > definition can only specify a single pattern, and that from a type theory > perspective all functions are arity-1.
Yes. I think that's the best proposal so far, actually. > Such a function can return a lambda, > allowing it to be progressively applied in something like curried style, but > the compiler is not inserting any accumulations in this case. I don't know what you mean by an accumulation. If the function is natively curried, you're saying there's still some trick to provide all the arguments in one function call? > The unfortunate consequence of this is that we remove all partial > application from the language, but we seem to be deciding that in the > presence of higher arity we need to do that anyway. 1. By "higher arity", you mean natively takes more than one argument? 2. By no partial application, you only mean of natively-higher-arity functions, right? _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
