>
> NO!!! It will make API for extensions a living hell..
>How so?
Please provide an example of an API for extension functions n this case, in Java or C++.
.
> We went through this - runtime sequence size check is
> MUCH simpler and achieves more with less clutter.
>There is not much clutter. The defintion of the list processing
>functions is concise (I will specify their semantics with Haskell)
> and you can use whatever boolean function you want, even extension
> functions. Concise definition in Haskell does not correspond to a concise implementation universally. This is introducing a whole new concept of function objects and abstract interfaces, and for all places - in Target match.. For the case that can be solved using much simpler approach - either runtime sequence size check (you DO get you sequence in runtime anyway, so what we have is just sugar coating it for abstract academic reasons anyway) daniel;
