[bitc-dev] Arity: middle position?

[Jonathan S. Shapiro]

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
> handling.
> > 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.


shap
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.coyotos.org/pipermail/bitc-dev/attachments/20100812/01dc35fc/attachment.html