Haskell is our first choice for building production software systems

Re: Haskell is our first choice for building production soft... by andrekandre on Monday January 11, 2021 @04:20PM (#25737249)

not that im advocating it per se, but couldnt you deduct the tyope based on what `zagizuga()` does with `sepulka`?

for example

  def sepulka(zagizuga)
    zagizuga.doSomething()
    zagizuga.doSomethingElse()

would infer the type of zagizuga as some object that implements two methods `doSomething()` and `doSomethingElse()`... i think that should be doable (and possibly extremely slow) right?

maybe i missed something...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re: Haskell is our first choice for building production soft... by thesz on Tuesday January 12, 2021 @10:42AM (#25748299)

Yes, it is doable, but what if there several memory-layout incompatible classes which implement both methods?

E.g, A implements virtual doSomething() and B and C inherit from A, add some different fields and both implement doSomethingElse() which they should overload for their inheritance from class Z.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re: Haskell is our first choice for building production soft... by andrekandre on Tuesday January 12, 2021 @12:27PM (#25750091)

good question, i guess it depends on the language... multiple inheritance without namespacing would either result in either method getting chosen randomly, or a build error...

for example, in swift you cant even inherit from two protocols that have default implementations... and i think in c++ you also cant call the method without specifying namespace...

so, i suppose, if you wanted to go all the way, you could even do namespace inference

  def sepulka(zagizuga)
    zagizuga::Something.doSomething()
    zagisuga.doSomethingElse()

so zagizuga is infered to be some type that inherits from `Something` namespace and expects that namespace to defined `doSomething()` function, in addition to providing `doSomethingElse()`

though that seems getting a bit fragile irl maybe...

[ Parent | on HN ]