Kevin Atkinson, replying to me...
> > I think it should be eminently possible to write a good generic
> > container class without resorting to either dynamic typing, or to
> > ad hoc polymorphism. (I don't see how these would really help,
> > actually.)
>
> Neither of them will. Sorry if I implied a connection. What I DO need
> is a solution is a better solution to multi parameter classes.
> Yes MPC is too limiting. I have tried. See my post "Limititions of
> Haskell Type System (was Re: OO in Haskell)".
I did, but I'd need to see a lot more details before I was any the
wiser as to what limitations you actually encountered.
> > > Ok here is my partial list.
> > >
> > > - True ad-doc polymorphism
> > > - Built in dynamic typing system.
> > > - State Encapsulation
> > > - A solution to the abilities arising from multi parameter type classes.
> > > - Syntactic sugar for supporting OO programming styles
> >
> > You should try C++ sometime, some people _highly_ recommend it
> > for the above. ;-)
>
> I take it what you really want me to do is just shut up and leave and
> to stop trying to change the Haskell language into something you think
> its not.
No, I want you to try and change it into something that it might
plausibly become. Your 'partial' list would appear, from a initial
inspection, to leave little left of either type safety or referential
transparency. Either you, or someone of a like agenda, have a very
large number of technical tricks up your sleeve, or those will go
down like the proverbial lead balloon at the next (first?) committee
meeting on Haskell II, I would predict with a degree of confidence
you're at liberty to not share. It's not clear from the above agenda,
though, that it wouldn't be easier to define (C++)++ (the second ++ being
lazy evaluation, HOFs, partial ap., GC). Which don't get me wrong,
would be an entirely good thing, IMO.
