Francis McCabe

A follow up that may explain why it's confusing: in most languages, including LISP, a term of the form: (t1 ... tn) is interpreted as the sequence of elements ti:...

This form of tuple syntax leads to real world confusion. In particular, it conflates f(x,y) with f(u,v,w) by binding x->u but y->(v,w)

It is not actually an 'arity error'. If I define f (x,y) = ... I can call it with f (u,v,w) with the above binding. This is because in ML...

More generally, this is a case of "types driving syntax" (in order to understand the syntax I need to know the types). Ergonomically, it is better to have it the...

So, if you are right, the original question stands. How do you invoke a function of three arguments where two of the arguments are the tuple result of another function...

The pattern-matching let does not have an analog in wasm. We need something for wasm; particularly for the x/ex/sno/host bindings surface syntax. (I.e., it is not necessarily always legal WASM...

Question: can you have a unary-tuple in SML?

For bindings, I would like to be able to write (local-fun (string-to-linear S)) where string-to-linear returns a pair of numbers: the address of the string and its length. in the...

because it's confusing. because of cases like (local-fun (string-to-linear S1) offset) (local-fun start (string-to-linear S1) end (string-to-linear S2)) (local-fun (first (string-to-linear S1)) 23 end (string-to-linear S2)) Understood that 'confusing' is...

If you look carefully at (local-fun (string-to-linear S1) end (string-to-linear S2)) (local-fun (first (string-to-linear S1)) 23 end (string-to-linear S2)) you will see the type of the local-fun is actually identical...