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
