On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Keean Schupke <ke...@fry-it.com> wrote: > On 1 May 2015 at 15:30, Matt Oliveri <atma...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Bull crap. As you said yourself, with coherent typeclasses, you may >> want alternatives that take an explicit comparison function. So with >> coherent typeclasses, you certainly want first-class functions too. >> Since typeclasses generally require passing dictionaries, you already >> effectively have first-class functions anyway, whether you like it or >> not. But really, who wants to get rid of first-class functions? No >> one. So don't write flame bait. > > This seems a bit of an over-reaction. My point was nobody is arguing to get > rid of first-class functions, which allow you to pass in ordering operators, > so why would you not want implicits where you can have one definition for > both ways of doing things.
Well you said it badly. You said: On Fri, May 1, 2015 at 7:54 AM, Keean Schupke <ke...@fry-it.com> wrote: > I don't here anyone arguing for type-classes over implicits saying they want > to remove first-class functions, but this would actually be the logical > conclusion of saying type classes with global instance coherence are better > than implicits? Now what if I were to say: At no date or time did Matt Oliveri <atma...@gmail.com> write: > I don't here anyone arguing for implicits over type-classes saying they want > to remove their pants, but this would actually be the logical > conclusion of saying implicits are better than type classes with global > instance coherence? Now that would be pretty darn annoying, huh? How dare I decide for myself what someone else's line of thinking has as its "logical" conclusion? Especially when that conclusion is so ridiculous and unfavorable? Now I don't know if you actually offended anyone, but you easily could've. So I was telling you not to say ridiculous things like that. _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list bitc-dev@coyotos.org http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
