On Thu, Nov 20, 2025, at 8:21 AM, Arnaud Le Blanc wrote: > Hi Valentin, > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 2:20 PM Valentin Udaltsov > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Question for Larry and Arnaud: >> >> In PFA v2, you note that constructor references pose significant technical >> challenges. >> Could you elaborate on what those challenges are and whether they are >> fundamental, or potentially addressable with a more limited or explicit >> syntax such as `new Foo(...)`? > > One issue is that partial application needs to resolve the function > being applied, but constructors can not be resolved without > instantiating the class first (at least, not on all classes). So `new > Foo(...)` would need to instantiate Foo, resolve the constructor, and > discard the instance, before creating the PFA. > > This is something that could be addressed as a follow up to PFA v2. > > Best Regards, > Arnaud
I will defer to Arnaud on the details. For my part, I have no conceptual objection to partialing constructors. The reason it was omitted from PFAv2 was basically "it's hard and complicated and there's enough going on here as is." If someone else wants to do a follow up RFC for FCC/PFA on constructors, I would not be opposed. --Larry Garfield
