Re: Functions vs constants

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2014 08:03:12 -0600, Shark8 wrote:

> On 26-Jul-14 02:02, Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>> The mess is to think one could design types as hierarchies.
> 
> Ridiculous; it's obvious that some types really do belong in a 
> hierarchy. (Granted, not the *same* hierarchy with "one root to rule 
> them all, and in the darkness bind them".) -- e.g. there really should 
> be a common ["generic"] root, an "abstract type" if you will, for 
> strings which conceptually are "instantiated" with the different 
> versions of Character (ie [[Wide_]Wide_]Character) but present to the 
> programmer a single, unified interface.

The point is that nobody can foresee *all* hierarchies a type participates
or may participate. These relationships are *not* global. The example was
given: the hierarchy Printable.

Type relationships are not objective for many reasons, the most important
is that it is a model of problem spaces and thus is never adequate. The
language type system should allow you adjust things instead of breaking
them.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de