Tony Morris

@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

@wbillingsley No it isn't. Scala does not make a difference to this fact.

@dibblego If that fn is a Scala fn, then Joe’s fast+loose reasoning that “if it has this type it must do this” might not hold.