Re:Towards Scala 3
by YorkshireSeason on Saturday April 21, 2018 @10:37AM
(#16891568)
> does not correspond to what derived implicits do
I did not claim it did. The first example disproved ionforce's claim that default values cannot be constructed dynamically.
> Define `a` as `y` to shadow the function parameter,
Whoops, yes that's correct. I didn't realise this was possible.
> The first example disproved ionforce's claim that default values cannot be constructed dynamically.
But I don't think that is what they meant. I think they meant something along the lines of what I said above:
> an expression with an arbitrary number of subexpressions may be synthesized, the shape of which depends on the types involves
Re:Towards Scala 3
by YorkshireSeason on Wednesday April 25, 2018 @06:08AM
(#16920097)
OK, maybe I misunderstood ionforce. I don't deny that type-driven synthesis is a core element of implicits.
The example you give to justify "recursion is quite restricted" is not a restriction on recursion at all, it's an ambiguity problem. Define `a` as `y` to shadow the function parameter, and it compiles.