5 Aug
2003
5 Aug
'03
6:22 a.m.
At 2003-08-04 22:33, Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:
This illustrates what you pointed out earlier, that the program's semantics can be changed by adding explicit type signatures which include implicitly-parameterized parameters.
But wasn't avoiding this a design goal of your proposal?
If it is valid, then this must be a valid reduction:
((\a -> ((a,\@x -> @x) {@x = 2})) (\@x -> @x),\@x -> @x) {@x = 1} ((\@x -> @x,\@x -> @x) {@x = 2},\@x -> @x) {@x = 1}
Not unless you give an explicit type signature, no.
So effectively your proposal is the same as the existing implicit parameter mechanism, except that the compiler is a bit stricter in certain cases where the types are ambiguous? -- Ashley Yakeley, Seattle WA