>> How do you get from "lack of compositionality" to "forfeit all other
>> features"?
>
> Lack of polymorphism, not composition.
I'm sorry, I'm just still confused about why you claim we have no polymorphism.
I mean, we simply do have polymorphism. I think I understand why you are saying
that polymorphic functions are less general in a language with multiary
functions, but it doesn't mean we have *no* polymorphism.
There has been work on making polymorphism more expressive in languages with
multiple arity functions:
http://www.ccs.neu.edu/racket/pubs/esop09-sthf.pdf
And I think C++0x has some similar functionality. Maybe we'll end up exploring
some of that. But at the end of the day, the worst case scenario here is that
we lose some expressiveness and some things require more code duplication.
That's a trade-off we will continue exploring, but we are willing to take some
hits in expressiveness.
I think it's worth cutting to the chase and recognizing that we are not aiming
for perfection. We're looking for a good trade-off between many competing
constraints. That requires taste, and it requires compromise. Reasonable people
can disagree about some of the individual decisions we make, but I don't agree
that this one constitutes an insurmountable failure.
Dave
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
