@djspiewak (actually, full stop may be able to be removed if you're talking about dependent types, dunno yet)
-
-
Replying to @puffnfresh
@puffnfresh@djspiewak what's so bad about local typeclasses?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MosRobinson
@MosRobinson@puffnfresh@djspiewak Zero benefit, huge penalty. Any claimed benefit comes by pitting against a limited imagination.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dibblego
@dibblego@puffnfresh@djspiewak can you point me to any papers on the cost/lack of benefit?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MosRobinson
@MosRobinson@puffnfresh@djspiewak No, it's just a well-accepted inductive argument. Bad ideas never believed good are not worth a paper.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
-
Replying to @dibblego
@dibblego@puffnfresh@djspiewak given there are papers saying "local instances are useful, let's do them", a rebuttal would be valuable1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MosRobinson
@MosRobinson@puffnfresh@djspiewak I know of no such thing, except for some Scala nonsense not worth considering. Which do you mean?3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @dibblego
@dibblego@puffnfresh@djspiewak the relation to orphaned instances is interesting. I use orphan instances for QuickCheck.Arbitrary or ppr4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@MosRobinson @puffnfresh @djspiewak I hold firmly to "orphan instances must be a type error." The wrap/unwrap argument is fallacious.
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.