@markhibberd @wfaler Thanks, so without dependent types it can't be done without breaking parametricity, right?
-
-
Replying to @mausch2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
-
Replying to @markhibberd
@markhibberd@wfaler many .NET JSON serializers do this by including the full type name in the generated JSON , breaking parametricity.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @markhibberd1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
-
Replying to @markhibberd1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
-
Replying to @markhibberd
@markhibberd@wfaler Here's a gist illustrating this https://gist.github.com/mausch/53580e14c2d7eae70163 …1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @markhibberd
@markhibberd@wfaler But can you deserialize such an open type? Wouldn't you have to manually include the type name when serializing...1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mausch
@markhibberd@wfaler ...and then match a list of allowed types to deserialize to?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@mausch @markhibberd @wfaler Right. Without reflection, this isn't possible. If Foo was closed, you could write a deserializer.
-
-
Replying to @tixxit
@tixxit@markhibberd@wfaler Great! Thanks for confirming my thoughts. But does this break *parametricity* concretely? Unsure about that.0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. 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.