I meant the writing stage, not the checking stage.
Imagine you don't know which type to pass. So, you'd have to pass something (null or whatever) in order to generate an error which gives you a clue.
That doesn't sound very convenient.
Well, the machine could check which types match that fingerprint, which might work okayish if the list isn't too long, but it won't tell you anything about the writer's intend.
Is a list of doubles, a list of ints, a Float32x4List, or a Float64x2List really the same thing?
What if it's actually meant to be used with something else which also supports the [] operator and whose items support the + operator.
Static analysis might not be able to tell you because it doesn't know all packages in existence. That package might not have been referenced, because that's not required to use a type from that package.
How does the generated documentation look like? It takes one argument "foo" which is something which has a "bar" field and a "baz" method? I'd rather have a concrete type there. "int x". Done.
What if you optimize the function a bit and now the fingerprint doesn't match one or more types anymore. Was this a breaking change?
Your intention didn't change. You always had one particular type in mind.
