This is going off topic (which was my fault initially ) so lets take this to the other thread
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/julia-users/sk8Gxq7ws3w%5B101-125%5D I agree that Haskell typeclasses may well be a long term interesting solution, does anybody know if there is a plan for this ? In the immediate, do we think following set notions are a better semantic ? On Friday, May 15, 2015 at 8:55:01 AM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote: > > > > On Friday, May 15, 2015 at 8:08:51 PM UTC+10, Scott Jones wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, May 14, 2015 at 3:13:09 PM UTC-4, Toivo Henningsson wrote: >>> >>> I don't think it should be allowed. What if two packages try to add >>> functions with the same name to Base that do completely different things? >>> And what if they are both applicable to some of the same argument types? >>> >> >> As long as there is no ambiguity in the types, why should they not be >> able to? >> That is *way* too restrictive... >> > > Because if some module adds an ambiguous type it will silently change the > meaning of existing code. > > >> >> >>> Beyond that, I think being able to add definitions to a module from the >>> outside comes with an extra set of problems. What if you define a function >>> that shadows a function that it was using from another module? What if >>> there was a big where someone was trying to access a function from another >>> module that wasn't there, but is was named because the function had been >>> introduced from the outside? >> >>
