I challenge any moral (fast/loose) reasoner to give a #scala impl of [A](List[A] => Int) that is not a constant, nor a function of length.
-
@dibblego Yes. So not “that fn uses == so is immoral” but “f+l reasoning claim is not 'morally correct' for Scala because Scala has Any” ?
@wbillingsley Scala has nothing to do with it. The equals functions violates parametricity and porticoes the escape hatch for lies.
-
-
@dibblego paper is whether “fast and loose" reasoning can make a false assumption about language (total/partial) yet be “morally correct” -
@dibblego so I think you’re creating a new meaning of “moral” — defining a “moral fn” as one where f+l reasoning should be true? - Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
@dibblego@wbillingsley It is perfectly possible to formulate a theory of parametricity on types with additional structure like 'equals'. -
@dibblego@wbillingsley E.g., Simpson and Møgelberg do so for types that have algebraic structure: http://lmcs-online.org/ojs/viewarticle.php?id=449&layout=abstract … - 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.