> You are just taking a formula out of context, omitting the plain English explanation that comes before it,
which, this?
"We saw earlier in the course that we can curry a function. That is, given a function of type (τ 1 ×τ 2 ) → τ 3 , we can give a function of type τ 1 → τ 2 → τ 3"
That helps no-one unless you have some serious hand-holding. I know the type of curry, I've written curry/bind/whateveer in C#, scala, JS and likely others. I have a background in this. It's not 'accessible' to mere mortals and even I'm not familiar with some of the notation here. Stop pretending it's just laziness on other people's part.
(oh yeah, did I forget to put constructive logic in my list above? Brouwer's intuitionism? FFS get real, I never even heard of that until a few years ago)
which, this?
"We saw earlier in the course that we can curry a function. That is, given a function of type (τ 1 ×τ 2 ) → τ 3 , we can give a function of type τ 1 → τ 2 → τ 3"
That helps no-one unless you have some serious hand-holding. I know the type of curry, I've written curry/bind/whateveer in C#, scala, JS and likely others. I have a background in this. It's not 'accessible' to mere mortals and even I'm not familiar with some of the notation here. Stop pretending it's just laziness on other people's part.
(oh yeah, did I forget to put constructive logic in my list above? Brouwer's intuitionism? FFS get real, I never even heard of that until a few years ago)