Re: specialisation, it seems no worse than explicitly passing a value when you have incoherent type-classes. All this does is pass the explicit 'instance value' implicitly.
However I do agree it encourages code that you cannot specialise, and perhaps that is enough reason to keep type-classes separate and coherent. In this case you can clearly see you don't need incoherent type classes that can be passed by value, as you can simply use a record. K. On 9 January 2015 at 07:55, Jonathan S. Shapiro <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm sorry. My last response to Keann was too strong. I'm prepared to be > convinced that there is something here, and I'm also prepared to be > convinced that there may be a better way to express intentional > specialization than the one I'm imagining (indeed, I think we *need* a > better way than I presently have). But I'm *very* concerned about the > dynamic character of this. > > > shap > > _______________________________________________ > bitc-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev > >
_______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
