At 2002-10-29 02:43, Josef Svenningsson wrote:
I'm pretty sure it's not possible...
You mean in H98? Sure no! What I meant was to implement overloading of function application as an extension of H98.
See my earlier message. If function application is overloadable, then there must be some operator "funapp" that corresponds to it. But operators themselves need function application, so you end up with: f a reduces to funapp f a reduces to funapp (funapp (funapp f)) a reduces to etc. -- Ashley Yakeley, Seattle WA
On 2002-10-29 at 03:21PST Ashley Yakeley wrote:
At 2002-10-29 02:43, Josef Svenningsson wrote:
I'm pretty sure it's not possible...
You mean in H98? Sure no! What I meant was to implement overloading of function application as an extension of H98.
See my earlier message. If function application is overloadable, then there must be some operator "funapp" that corresponds to it. But operators themselves need function application, so you end up with:
f a reduces to funapp f a reduces to funapp (funapp (funapp f)) a reduces to etc.
But we could just make $ the primitive instead of juxtaposition (and infix the primary form). Then f a is shorthand for f $ a and it stops there. -- Jón Fairbairn Jon.Fairbairn@cl.cam.ac.uk 31 Chalmers Road jf@cl.cam.ac.uk Cambridge CB1 3SZ +44 1223 570179 (after 14:00 only, please!)
--- Ashley Yakeley wrote:
f a reduces to funapp f a reduces to funapp (funapp (funapp f)) a reduces to etc.
Not necessarily. If "funapp" is a new keyword, and there's a new grammar rule along the lines of expression :: "funapp" expression expression then it does not reduce to anything. -- a. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/
participants (3)
-
anatoli -
Ashley Yakeley -
Jon Fairbairn