@wbillingsley You rely on bottom values to make the case. This is immoral in the fast and loose reasoning sense. There is no "pedantically."
-
@dibblego I think you miss an ambiguity in your original tweet. Not clear you were asking for a fn as if in a total language.
@wbillingsley It's abundantly clear by explicitly asking for moral reasoning (no magic).
-
-
@dibblego No, you asked for a Scala fn meeting a Scala type. Never asked for any reasoning about it. -
@wbillingsley Yes I very very very explicitly asked for that. I am not sure how that was not absolutely clear given I used those exact words
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@dibblego Indeed the point of my reply was that the f+l assumption is not “morally correct” if your argument is such a Scala f doesn’t exist -
@wbillingsley No it isn't. Scala does not make a difference to this fact. - Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
@dibblego because some wretch can just come along and write something using Any -
@wbillingsley Yes and that would violate fast and loose reasoning. That is entirely the point.
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.