Instead of "static type advocate", maybe we should call them "metaprogramming deniers". Then there are the metaprogramming deniers who don't even advocate static types. Morons.
Dependent types can do it — but then all your coding must be done in the _internal_ model for the metalevel transformations to be possible, the semantics being reflected onto the ambient system only at the very last minute for evaluation.
-
-
But you have to code against a concrete interface, be it a pure or mutable one, right? In that case, can’t you generically transform the interface *only* and pass it to your interface-using function instead of transforming the function itself?
-
If I understand what you mean: a- yes, a given piece of code is written with its inputs and outputs each following a specific style (pure/stateful, OO/typeclass). b- well, that's what I do: build a new interface that wraps an adapter around each of the original functions.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
Read my blog!