At 05:25 PM 5/25/2001 -0400, S. Alexander Jacobson wrote:

>Admittedly, this is different from how haskell type checks now.  I guess
>the question is whether it is impossible to type check or whether it just
>requires modification to the type checking algorithm.  Does anyone know?

    I don't think so... The only ambiguity that I can think of is with 
passing functions as arguments to other functions, and you showed that it 
can be resolved by currying:

map f x

    would have to be force-curried using parenthesis:

(map f) x

    because otherwise, it would mean:

map (f x)

    which is both: very wrongly typed and NOT the intention.

    I like your parsing scheme. I still DO like more explicit languages 
better, though (i.e. map(f, x) style, like C & Co.). Currying is cool, but 
it can be kept at a conceptual level, not affecting syntax.


    Salutaciones,
                               JCAB

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos "JCAB" Arevalo Baeza    | http://www.roningames.com
Senior Technology programmer        | mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ronin Entertainment                 | ICQ: 10913692
                        (my opinions are only mine)
JCAB's Rumblings: http://www.metro.net/jcab/Rumblings/html/index.html



_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Reply via email to