i dismissed a notice of `A.(B)->C` when i came ...

# stdlib

[jimn]

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?

[jimn]

could fun<X,T,R> X<T>.iterator(Unit)->(R) exist for instance for filling the gap between iterable and sequence?

[ilya.gorbunov]

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.

[jimn]

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?

[Ruckus]

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

[jimn]

@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

[jimn]

apparently ad-hoc polymoprphism is mostly addressed in this KEEP https://github.com/Kotlin/KEEP/pull/87 which seems like a pretty relevant bit of info to add to this thread