[bitc-dev] Type classes as types

[Jonathan S. Shapiro]

The problem is that member functions *aren't* just syntactic sugar on type
class methods. Member functions have access to private/protected fields and
members; type class methods do not (unless the implementing function is a
member function).

On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 8:11 AM, Sandro Magi <naasking at higherlogics.com>wrote:

> On 2011-02-09 4:43 AM, Jonathan S. Shapiro wrote:
> > Yes. If we adopt this view, then type class methods and member functions
> > have a sensible reconciliation.
> >
> > But the question will then arise (in the mind of the developer): when do
> > I use member functions and when do I use type class methods? It becomes
> > a challenge of design, and not one that is easily resolved. My guess is
> > that /most/ developers will choose methods, if only because they are
> > familiar...
>
> I don't follow. Methods and type classes are the same in this view, so
> they are just choosing type classes. Or are you suggesting that "member
> functions" are syntactic sugar that desugars into type classes?
>
> I don't see any advantage to this view. It seems sensible to simply
> choose the single, more general abstraction mechanism and stick with it,
> even if it's a little unfamiliar to developers.
>
> Sandro
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.coyotos.org/pipermail/bitc-dev/attachments/20110210/3795d25f/attachment.html