so "not in practice (but actually kinda in practice)"
-
Are we limiting type class to categorial abstractions here? Or do you mean any type class, even ones such as `Eq`, for example?
No limits. Just all the type-classes, including those we haven't thought of yet (and especially, for example, those that we have). Though equality is broken on the JVM from the outset.
-
-
Mmm... I'm not following. You're talking about Functor <: Applicative <: Monad <:... right? If we assume that they are broken - you've exposed a bad implementation, but that doesn't invalidate the principle though. It doesn't show it's impossible to implement a sane, say, Show
-
That's why I asked for a definition. My very informal, likely incorret definition is, a type class is syntactic sugar for passing dictionaries around (+ implicit composition, which is really, really nice). Haskell has that. But so does Scala.
- Show replies
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.