RE: Abstraction values

From: Rui Shi (shearer@cs.bu.edu)
Date: Sun Nov 26 2006 - 16:10:44 EST 

Return-Path: <shearer@cs.bu.edu>
X-Spam-HitLevel: 
X-Spam-DCC: : 
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.0 (2005-09-13) on cs3.bu.edu
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=10.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00  autolearn=ham version=3.1.0
X-Spam-Pyzor: 
Received: from SHEARERSHOT (c-24-60-255-210.hsd1.ma.comcast.net [24.60.255.210]) (authenticated bits=0) by cs3.bu.edu (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id kAQLAxuE000510; Sun, 26 Nov 2006 16:12:08 -0500
Message-Id: <200611262112.kAQLAxuE000510@cs3.bu.edu>
From: "Rui Shi" <shearer@cs.bu.edu>
To: "'Michel Machado'" <michel@digirati.com.br>
Cc: <cs520@cs.bu.edu>
Subject: RE: Abstraction values
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 16:10:44 -0500
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2962
Thread-Index: AccRkcGjllkwnlYkQ/GZEZ+dAktdcgADV3lg
In-Reply-To: <00c201c71191$84c21330$13b6a8c0@dark>
X-Clamav-Status: No
Status: RO
Content-Length: 630
X-UID: 58
X-Keywords:

I think you should use TpVar for type variables rather than TpUni, which is
only necessary for implementing let-poly efficiently.

Rui

-----Original Message-----
From: Michel Machado [mailto:michel@digirati.com.br]
Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2006 2:32 PM
To: cs520@cs.bu.edu
Subject: Abstraction values

Hi Rui,

    My typechecker is assigning the following type to the term "(lam (f) =>
lam (x) => f x)":

TpFun (TpFun (TpUni 1, TpUni 2), TpFun (TpUni 1, TpUni 2))

    Is it okay? The specification doesn't mention how types for higher-order
values should look like when they have no concrete types.

[ ]'s
Michel Machado

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Dec 14 2006 - 16:31:59 EST