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:jcab@roningames.com Ronin Entertainment | ICQ: 10913692 (my opinions are only mine) JCAB's Rumblings: http://www.metro.net/jcab/Rumblings/html/index.html