he/him 
I hate the phrase “this isn’t type-safe” when what it really means is “our type system is too restrictive, or not expressive enough”
Show this thread
-
Is this related to not being able to use the regexp types suggestion u posted in the past?
It's not. More general about type systems claiming something isn't type-safe when it's actually the type system not being smart enough. The argument becomes centered around fitting into the existing system rather than how the system can change to accommodate.
-
-
As a person who has done some language design the calculus isn’t whether something’s possible. It’s whether the new capability provides enough value to justify the associated cost of implementation and/or impact to the community to go through a deprecation cycle.
-
I don't think I roll implementation complexity into my analysis of something being type-safe. Although I understand that's my bias as mostly an observer.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.