Re: OO in Haskell

[Alex Ferguson]

Kevin Atkinson:
> 2) More specific types, you can't _easilly_ call the more general type.
> For example in OO this is very commen:
> 
> class Base
>   virtual foo()
>     do stuff....
> 
> class Derived, extends Base
>   foo()
>     call Base::foo()
>     doo stuff

You can certainly do this in Haskell;  the only difference (and here we
return to a well-worn point) you can't _overload_ the name of a different
method between two different classes.


> 3) Encapsulation.  You can't have private and protected members.  Some
> of this can be done using modules.  However it is more work.

What exactly can't be done with classes, and how, substantively, is
it more work?


> 4) Cleaner more natural syntax.

More like C++, you mean?

Sl�n,
Alex.