On Fri, 2009-01-16 at 18:14 -0500, Anton van Straaten wrote: > 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.
+1 (Although shouldn't it really be ExistentiallyQuantifiedConstructorTypes or something? If GHC ever actually adds first-class existentials, what is Cabal going to call *that* then?) jcc _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe