On Sun, 26 Jan 2003 19:07:01 -0500 (EST) Dean Herington <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What may distinguish Haskell from typical OO languages (I'm not an > expert on them) is that in Haskell such polymorphic functions could > (always or at least nearly so) be specialized statically for their > uses at different types. Without existential types, one big difference from an OO language and haskell is that in haskell you can't have a datastructure such as a list, made up of elements of a certain type class but of different types, whereas in an OO language (say eiffel) you can have a List[A] wich can contain any sublcass of A. In general, even with existential types, haskell lacks a subtype relation. I always wonder if there really is no need for subtypes (and would appreciate any pointer to a discussion on the topic). Vincenzo -- Fedeli alla linea, anche quando non c'è Quando l'imperatore è malato, quando muore,o è dubbioso, o è perplesso. Fedeli alla linea la linea non c'è. [CCCP] _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
