[bitc-dev] Arity: middle position?
Jonathan S. Shapiro
shap at eros-os.org
Thu Aug 12 09:44:59 PDT 2010
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 3:52 AM, Sam Mason <sam at samason.me.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 10:22:07PM -0700, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
> > Hmm. It occur to me that there may be a "middle position" on arity
> > We could *record* the arity information for purposes of type computation,
> > but *disregard* it for purposes of type compatibility.
> > Does this smell like it might work? If so, then the whole thing becomes
> > purely a matter of surface syntax.
> It sounds as though it could work, but what's the purpose? If the
> programmer is worried about the heap then surely you *want* to be warned
> that you're going to be allocating a closure, if you start doing the
> above then you loose this complaint from the type system.
Yes and no. Such a procedure will not be typed as noalloc, for example, and
the tuplization trick still works independent of this.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the bitc-dev