On Friday, 9 February 2018 at 13:47:51 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
On Friday, 9 February 2018 at 08:27:21 UTC, Nick Sabalausky
And yes, things like "inout", "auto ref" or whatever, and
such, strike me as indicative of more fundamental design
flaws. (Not "flaw" in the sence of "mistakes" necessarily, but
"flaw" in the sence of "there must be a better way to design
these things...")
[...]
Yeah, something like traits in Rust or typeclasses in Haskell
would be a lot better. Fortunately, one can kinda-sorta get
there with a library solution. Check out `@implements` in
https://github.com/atilaneves/concepts
I'm confused. While I get how @implements resolves the same
issues as Rusts's traits, I don't see how traits resolve the same
issues as inout/auto ref. My understanding is that inout and auto
ref mean you don't have to write multiple versions of the
relevant functions. Moreover, while one could use templates to do
something similar, inout/auto ref are designed to reduce code
bloat. I don't think Rust's traits can accomplish the same thing,
but I'm not familiar enough with Haskell's typeclasses to know.
