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 …
-
-
Replying to @posco
I'm not sure: I think that'd either lose some useful functionality of implicits, or be the same with slightly different tradeoffs...
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @propensive
I don't mean get rid of implicit in scala, just add an explicit typeclass mechanism.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @posco
@d6 had some interesting thoughts on his@Lambda_World keynote regarding lang extensions@propensive1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
I'm personally inclined to have a cleaner syntax for typeclasses via direct Lang support too.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
I would like to see all these ideas crystallized in a SIP.
1 reply 1 retweet 6 likes
It would be a massive change. Starting to formalize it in a SIP might be a good start, though.
11:25 AM - 1 Oct 2016
0 replies
0 retweets
2 likes
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.