Matthew Lutze

###### Question 1 Are there plans to support calling non-`ZeroArgConstructor`s? ###### Concern 1 > Experiment with method imports without signatures provided that only one variant exists. This breaks monotonicity (or...

> > Related to Concern 1, we should support importing un-overridden functions from a class rather than the interface or superclass defining them. > > What does this mean? For...

> Right, I was confused.

> @mlutze Do you agree? This looks correct to me.

Is there a reason checking the return type of the imported function happens in the `Resolver` rather than the `Typer`?

I'd prefer it in the `Typer`. The reason is that before the `Kinder`, we don't have well-kinded types so there's a lot of messiness about, which I'm afraid could lead...

(The more personal concern is that it complicates my PR #4408, but we're still on the fence about whether that will go through)

The fact that these are in the root namespace makes the opacity useless.

It _should_ work

I've added this as a discussion topic for the next language design meeting.