Niklas Broberg wrote:
I still think existential quantification is a step too far though. :-P
Seriously, existential quantification is a REALLY simple concept, that
you would learn week two (or maybe three) in any introductory course
on logic. In fact, I would argue that far more people probably know
what existential quantification is than that know what a monoid is.
:-)
Andrew's core objection here seems reasonable to me. It was this:
> {-# LANGUAGE ExistentialQuantification #-} is an absurd name and
> should be changed to something that, at a minimum, tells you it's
> something to do with the type system.
But I suspect I part company from Andrew in thinking that something like
ExistentiallyQuantifiedTypes would be a perfectly fine alternative.
Anton
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
