4 ms·

I haven't seen a type system that allows variadic types for Tuples. This would be equivalent to creating a struct with variadic amount of properties. The defin

I haven't seen a type system that allows variadic types for Tuples. This would be equivalent to creating a struct with variadic amount of properties. The definition for tuples here is similar to a struct. They are one in the same except structs have names for each property while tuples don't. That is literally the main concept of a tuple, just a struct with no names for properties. The type system for python is already "there", it is in fact superior to many other type systems from other popular languages.

Timon3 3y ago
That's confusing, considering Python has them with TypeVarTuples?
- corethree 3y ago
  Yeah they're getting flexible with the definitions. The developers are committees of people many of which don't know type theory and introduce arbitrary concepts based off of misguided intuitions. It's the same with typescript I'm sure. You will note that this thing doesn't exist in haskell for tuples because haskell devs tend to be well versed with concept of what a tuple is.
  - Timon3 3y ago
    So you keep going on and on about how this is wrong, and doesn't work, and doesn't exist, and it's impossible, because it isn't implemented in Haskell? Seriously? This is one of the strangest and worst interactions I've had on this site, because I essentially made a comment that goes "the sky is blue, but it looks better at sunset when red" and you keep going "nu-uh! Impossible! Doesn't work! The sky is blue, nothing else makes sense!"
    - corethree 3y ago
      >So you keep going on and on about how this is wrong, and doesn't work, and doesn't exist, and it's impossible, because it isn't implemented in Haskell? Seriously? Yeah seriously. You actually don't know what you're talking about. You're not convinced. I'm failing on that end, but this is real, you're not understanding me. Haskell one of the languages with the most advanced type systems in practical programming. Algebraic data types. You clearly haven't used it so of course you remain unconvinced. >This is one of the strangest and worst interactions I've had on this site, because I essentially made a comment that goes "the sky is blue, but it looks better at sunset when red" and you keep going "nu-uh! Impossible! Doesn't work! The sky is blue, nothing else makes sense!" It seems this way to you because frankly, you're not very knowledgeable of what I'm talking about. Read my other replies. I left one more to explain it to you in a bigger way. Hopefully you'll get it and stop violating the rules here with personal insults and calling this the "worst" and "strangest" interactions you ever had on this site. It's just fucking rude. This is my last explanation for you: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38391431 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38391431 If you still don't get it, well I can't help you.
      - Timon3 3y ago
        > Haskell one of the languages with the most advanced type systems in practical programming. Algebraic data types. You clearly haven't used it so of course you remain unconvinced. Wrong. > It seems this way to you because frankly, you're not very knowledgeable of what I'm talking about. This wouldn't come across quite as bad if I didn't literally post an example long ago. If you're so knowledgeable about all this, why can't you acknowledge the examples I've already given? Why are you ignoring them?
        corethree 3y ago
        I'm not, I acknowledge everything you say. It may seem that I'm not acknowledging stuff. But this is not the case. I read and understand all your posts. You on the other hand. I doubt you read or understood all my responses to you. You only partially understand. I also don't think you have used haskell before. This is what I mean. You aren't knowledgeable.
        Timon3 3y ago
        > I'm not, I acknowledge everything you say. It may seem that I'm not acknowledging stuff. But this is not the case. I read and understand all your posts. Then why have you not yet acknowledged the Typescript concat function I posted here yesterday? You have since written 16 replies, not a single one of which acknowledges this. Why do you keep not acknowledging that I gave you the function you consider impossible?
dragonwriter 3y ago
> I haven't seen a type system that allows variadic types for Tuples. This would be equivalent to creating a struct with variadic amount of properties. No, it wouldn't. It would be equivalent to creating a generic type where the concrete types that would be compatible with it would be structs of different shapes. But if you use the same variadic type within a particular context (e.g., a function signature and definition), then any given call to the function, that variadic type must represent the same concrete type each place.

Timon3 3y ago

That's confusing, considering Python has them with TypeVarTuples?

corethree 3y ago
Yeah they're getting flexible with the definitions. The developers are committees of people many of which don't know type theory and introduce arbitrary concepts based off of misguided intuitions. It's the same with typescript I'm sure. You will note that this thing doesn't exist in haskell for tuples because haskell devs tend to be well versed with concept of what a tuple is.
- Timon3 3y ago
  So you keep going on and on about how this is wrong, and doesn't work, and doesn't exist, and it's impossible, because it isn't implemented in Haskell? Seriously? This is one of the strangest and worst interactions I've had on this site, because I essentially made a comment that goes "the sky is blue, but it looks better at sunset when red" and you keep going "nu-uh! Impossible! Doesn't work! The sky is blue, nothing else makes sense!"
  - corethree 3y ago
    >So you keep going on and on about how this is wrong, and doesn't work, and doesn't exist, and it's impossible, because it isn't implemented in Haskell? Seriously? Yeah seriously. You actually don't know what you're talking about. You're not convinced. I'm failing on that end, but this is real, you're not understanding me. Haskell one of the languages with the most advanced type systems in practical programming. Algebraic data types. You clearly haven't used it so of course you remain unconvinced. >This is one of the strangest and worst interactions I've had on this site, because I essentially made a comment that goes "the sky is blue, but it looks better at sunset when red" and you keep going "nu-uh! Impossible! Doesn't work! The sky is blue, nothing else makes sense!" It seems this way to you because frankly, you're not very knowledgeable of what I'm talking about. Read my other replies. I left one more to explain it to you in a bigger way. Hopefully you'll get it and stop violating the rules here with personal insults and calling this the "worst" and "strangest" interactions you ever had on this site. It's just fucking rude. This is my last explanation for you: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38391431 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38391431 If you still don't get it, well I can't help you.
    - Timon3 3y ago
      > Haskell one of the languages with the most advanced type systems in practical programming. Algebraic data types. You clearly haven't used it so of course you remain unconvinced. Wrong. > It seems this way to you because frankly, you're not very knowledgeable of what I'm talking about. This wouldn't come across quite as bad if I didn't literally post an example long ago. If you're so knowledgeable about all this, why can't you acknowledge the examples I've already given? Why are you ignoring them?
      - corethree 3y ago
        I'm not, I acknowledge everything you say. It may seem that I'm not acknowledging stuff. But this is not the case. I read and understand all your posts. You on the other hand. I doubt you read or understood all my responses to you. You only partially understand. I also don't think you have used haskell before. This is what I mean. You aren't knowledgeable.
        Timon3 3y ago
        > I'm not, I acknowledge everything you say. It may seem that I'm not acknowledging stuff. But this is not the case. I read and understand all your posts. Then why have you not yet acknowledged the Typescript concat function I posted here yesterday? You have since written 16 replies, not a single one of which acknowledges this. Why do you keep not acknowledging that I gave you the function you consider impossible?

dragonwriter 3y ago

> I haven't seen a type system that allows variadic types for Tuples. This would be equivalent to creating a struct with variadic amount of properties. No, it wouldn't. It would be equivalent to creating a generic type where the concrete types that would be compatible with it would be structs of different shapes. But if you use the same variadic type within a particular context (e.g., a function signature and definition), then any given call to the function, that variadic type must represent the same concrete type each place.