class Function ?

[Jon Fairbairn]

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!)