Tony Morris

@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?

@dibblego if so, that could be a very useful definition. Just trying to understand the aim of the thread a little better.

@wbillingsley I am using exactly the same meaning as "moral" as fast and loose reasoning.

@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 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