eta and beta aren't nicely compatible with n-ary functions#258
Open
eta and beta aren't nicely compatible with n-ary functions#258
Conversation
84a3cff to
755d5fc
Compare
755d5fc to
cd2108e
Compare
…intead of `e`s in various functions). I got a bit overzealous in my changes! :)
and use it to uncopy the code in mon-aft.scrbl
cd2108e to
cf630a5
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Resyntax analyzed 0 files in this pull request and found no issues.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
... and the existing code in long-tut was wrong, as found by random testing.
After some discussion with @mfelleisen the best approach seems to be to just get rid of n-ary lambda expressions, so this pull request is a work-in-progress to do that.