On 02/08/2016 11:13 AM, Marcin Mrotek wrote:
1. Delete the unnameable 3. Remove all specialness of it
... and end up with absolutely no way to apply functions that return unboxed values?
I think the point is that we don't need to worry about what the type of " " is in the expression "f x", because it's syntax for function application. If we had /explicit/ syntax for function application (read the PDF, it's good), there would be no problem to begin with -- syntax isn't typed. The suggestion in the PDF is basically to drop the "f x" syntax and always use "f $ x" which has a lot of merit if you rename "$" to something less ugly and more obvious. The paper proposes "f.x", but you could also equate "f." with "f()" to make something crazy like "f(x)" work.