On Fri, May 26, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Andrey Andreev <n...@devilix.net> wrote:
> Hi, > > On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 11:02 PM, Dan Ackroyd <dan...@basereality.com> > wrote: > > > > The RFC specifically didn't mention LSP....because that is separate > > from co/contravariance. It's unfortunate for other people to be > > throwing the two around at you with a lack of precision. > > > > Perhaps this was the issue ... I was under the impression that LSP was > used as (part of) the motivation for the RFC. > The RFC respects the variance rules, the variance rules are a direct consequence of LSP. That's why we're talking about LSP in this context. The implication chain is LSP => variance => this RFC. Nikita
