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 @propensive
if you don't get rid of them you can't have a proper encoding.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
Replying to @aloiscochard @posco
I think you need to better define "proper"... I'm guessing a "proper encoding" would implicitly preclude modularity.
1:33 AM - 2 Oct 2016
0 replies
0 retweets
0 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.