Browse thread
partial application warning unreliable?
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | Andreas Rossberg <AndreasRossberg@w...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] partial application warning unreliable? |
"skaller" <skaller@users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > Felix allows > > f: int -> 0 > > but not > > g: 0 -> int Then your "0" is not a proper type in the usual formal sense. Even less is it the type-theoretic 0. As Andrej Bauer points out, void vs unit has nothing to do with side effects. If you want to capture side effects properly in a type system the known approaches are effect systems or monads. In fact, your 0 looks somewhat like a monad type with implicit injection and semicolon as a kind of forgetting bind operator. But it seems sufficiently adhoc to make any type-theoretic interpretation difficult. - Andreas