On 31/05/07, Dan Weston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I thought the types were *existentially* quantified because the
constructor arguments were *universally* quantified. Or did I get it
backwards?
That'd be right, if the situation actually involved constructors.
I.e., when people talk about exist
I thought the types were *existentially* quantified because the
constructor arguments were *universally* quantified. Or did I get it
backwards?
Dan
Wolfgang Jeltsch wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 30. Mai 2007 14:09 schrieb Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH:
On May 30, 2007, at 5:59 , Federico Squartini wrote:
On 5/31/07, Simon Peyton-Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And on behalf of the many, many contributors I'd like to thank the one and only
Andres for his work in putting the HCAR together. It *is* a lot of work, but
the HCAR is terrific glue for the Haskell community. It's always a blast
read
| On behalf of the many, many contributors, I am pleased to announce
| that the
|
| Haskell Communities and Activities Report
|(12th edition, May 2007)
|
| http://www.haskell.org/communities/
|
| is now available from the Haskell Communities ho
Am Mittwoch, 30. Mai 2007 14:09 schrieb Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH:
> On May 30, 2007, at 5:59 , Federico Squartini wrote:
> > I suppose there is something "under the hood" which makes them
> > different, but I cannot figure out what.
>
> For one thing, ST uses existential types to prevent values fro
