> Of course it could be implemented type-erased style, but that's an unpleasant can of worms.
> If it were implemented like C++ templates, it would be a source level feature, meaning you can't have higher kinded polymorphic methods in assemblies. I think we can reach consensus that such a feature would only pollute the language.
> If it were implemented like Java generics, it would lead to all sorts of nonsense. For example you couldn't do typeof(M<>) inside the hkpm, since the type has been erased.
And then a complex-but-good implementation idea follows. Type erasure is not necessary in this case.
> Of course it could be implemented type-erased style, but that's an unpleasant can of worms.
> If it were implemented like C++ templates, it would be a source level feature, meaning you can't have higher kinded polymorphic methods in assemblies. I think we can reach consensus that such a feature would only pollute the language.
> If it were implemented like Java generics, it would lead to all sorts of nonsense. For example you couldn't do typeof(M<>) inside the hkpm, since the type has been erased.
And then a complex-but-good implementation idea follows. Type erasure is not necessary in this case.