Implement with Types, Not Your Brain

Re:Implement with Types, Not Your Brain by danharaj on Tuesday June 25, 2019 @08:46PM (#20280861)

If you define a custom generic data type, for example if you need a special kind of tree for a particular algorithm, then you're going to be writing a lot of generic functions like cons for that data type.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Implement with Types, Not Your Brain by EdwardDiego on Tuesday June 25, 2019 @11:56PM (#20281770)

In what language? I thought Haskell and OCaml for example, had generics.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Implement with Types, Not Your Brain by mrkeen on Wednesday June 26, 2019 @04:55AM (#20283088)

The situation is a bit better than just generics (as they are in Java). For instance, if I had a List<Int>, I can treat it like a List<I>, but why can't I treat it like an <L>Int? Or an <L><I>?

[ Parent | on HN ]