This problem with scala typeclasses really feels to me like we need to be looking at language level solutions.https://twitter.com/typelevel/status/781877858901819392 …
I'm not sure: I think that'd either lose some useful functionality of implicits, or be the same with slightly different tradeoffs...
-
-
I don't mean get rid of implicit in scala, just add an explicit typeclass mechanism.
-
@d6 had some interesting thoughts on his@Lambda_World keynote regarding lang extensions@propensive - Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Agda ignores ambiguity between solutions which it can prove definitionally equal, like might be possible here.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.