i dismissed a notice of

A.(B)->C

when i came upon a random refactoring intent having reverted it after testing it and seeing it worked all the same. https://kotlinlang.org/docs/reference/lambdas.html#function-literals-with-receiver as it turns out is a real thing. so there are a few quirks about stdlib, gaps between say list and array which appeear to be interchangable but are not(unless i write them). and likewise for the primitive arrays and the object arrays. is there an undercurrent of some java-generics like algebra that spoils it for writing a suite of generic extensions for the existing base kotlin libs?

You mean, abstracting/generalizing over convention, e.g. writing a function that takes anything that implements "iterable" convention? No, it can be achieved neither with generics nor the other language constructions.

No, it can be achieved neither with generics nor the other language constructions.

is that a double or triple negative? does this mean "cannot" be achieved?

@jimn It was perfectly correct. Both the following constructs are equivalent: • cannot x by a or b • can x by neither a nor b

@Ruckus thank you for helping with the clarification of his intent. while that may be a logical and proper English construct found in the likes of Noam Chomsky dissertations or Tolkien literature, it's not even a rarely used construction in common online communication. it looks like a cut and paste error tbh worthy of double checking