Re: LSP

Apologies for the many messages. I try to make this the last and observe if 
there any discussion from others...

On Saturday, June 20, 2015 at 5:51:22 AM UTC+8, Shelby wrote: 
>
> composition on parameterized types, e.g. if the interface in question 
> results with a modification of the input then such a compiler could 
> automatically supply the boilerplate for a monadic parameterized type.
>

Also Applicative for lifting interfaces (methods) that operate on its type 
parameter to parameterized types.
 

>
> Conclusion is we will need to build category theory into our parameterized 
> types and compiler if we want to eliminate boilerplate along with true 
> S-modularity. Haskell seems to be much further along, but maybe sacrificing 
> the terseness of S-modularity in exchange for terseness of I-modularity 
> with its global inference, coinductive type system.
>

http://augustss.blogspot.com/2011/05/more-points-for-lazy-evaluation-in.html#c5917972062541336427

So the trade-off appears to be Haskell's functions are sort of "first class 
> macros" in exchange for unpredictable memory usage. Show me a program that 
> isn't easily convertible into scheme and I'm sold, which based on the above 
> observation would seem to require a big hierarchy of first-class 
> conditionals passed around to yet higher ones. But until then, Haskell 
> remains my type-safe *prototyping* friend.
>


P.S. I just remembered you have to insert a 'c' in those links to comments 
within ausgustss's blog as follows, e.g. replace:

http://augustss.blogspot.com/2011/05/more-points-for-lazy-evaluation-in.html#3997003365498848881

With:

http://augustss.blogspot.com/2011/05/more-points-for-lazy-evaluation-in.html#c3997003365498848881 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "scala-language" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.