John Lato wrote:
Are you advocating introducing existential types to beginning
Haskellers? I think something with the scary name existential
quantification would greatly increase the head'splodin' on the
learnin' slope. Certainly there's a place for them, but I wouldn't
want to see new Haskell
Derek Elkins wrote:
In general, to encode OO...
turns out all you needed was recursive bounded
existential quantification.
Do you have a reference for that?
Thanks,
Yitz
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
Yitzchak Gale wrote:
Derek Elkins wrote:
In general, to encode OO...
turns out all you needed was recursive bounded
existential quantification.
Do you have a reference for that?
I'm not sure if this is precisely what Derek had in mind, but Bruce,
Cardelli, and Pierce did a comparison of
I suspect that more has been done since 1997. Isn't that pre-Oleg?
Karl Mazurak wrote:
Yitzchak Gale wrote:
Derek Elkins wrote:
In general, to encode OO...
turns out all you needed was recursive bounded
existential quantification.
Do you have a reference for that?
I'm not sure if this is
Are you advocating introducing existential types to beginning
Haskellers? I think something with the scary name existential
quantification would greatly increase the head'splodin' on the
learnin' slope. Certainly there's a place for them, but I wouldn't
want to see new Haskell programmers
On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 18:15 +0100, John Lato wrote:
Are you advocating introducing existential types to beginning
Haskellers? I think something with the scary name
Invalid argument.
existential
quantification would greatly increase the head'splodin' on the
learnin' slope.
Invalid
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 9:14 PM, Jonathan Cast
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 18:15 +0100, John Lato wrote:
Are you advocating introducing existential types to beginning
Haskellers? I think something with the scary name
Invalid argument.
existential
quantification would
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 9:15 PM, John Lato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are you advocating introducing existential types to beginning
Haskellers? I think something with the scary name existential
quantification would greatly increase the head'splodin' on the
learnin' slope. Certainly there's a
Well, they act like interfaces in argument types, just not variable or
return types.
Yours, Alexey Romanov
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 4:11 PM, John Lato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was just thinking about what I wish someone had told me when I
started working with Haskell (not that long ago).
I'm not advocating existential types in this case. I rarely use them myself.
I was just pointing out that the mechanism for doing the OO thing
exists in Haskell too, albeit looking a little different.
I don't think there's anything weird about existential types, except
an unfamiliar name.
On
You can do equivalent of
// List and MyList are different classes
if (something) { return new List(); }
else { return new MyList(); }
in Haskell as well. But to do that you have to introduce an
existential wrapper in the return type.
In OO languages the existential wrapper is built in to OO
On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 13:11 +0100, John Lato wrote:
I was just thinking about what I wish someone had told me when I
started working with Haskell (not that long ago). It would have saved
me a great deal of trouble.
A recent quote of mine from HWN:
* ddarius: Here's the short guide to
On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 05:39 +0800, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
I'm not advocating existential types in this case. I rarely use them myself.
I was just pointing out that the mechanism for doing the OO thing
exists in Haskell too, albeit looking a little different.
In general, to encode OO you
On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 22:28 +0400, Alexey Romanov wrote:
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 9:14 PM, Jonathan Cast
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 18:15 +0100, John Lato wrote:
Are you advocating introducing existential types to beginning
Haskellers? I think something with the scary
I'm not advocating existential types in this case. I rarely use them myself.
I was just pointing out that the mechanism for doing the OO thing
exists in Haskell too, albeit looking a little different.
I don't think there's anything weird about existential types, except
an unfamiliar name.
Am Mittwoch, 15. Oktober 2008 00:34 schrieb Derek Elkins:
It's not technically true. Type classes and interfaces a la Java are
very fundamentally different neither is remotely capable of doing what
the other does.
Could you elaborate on that, please?
I always understood Java's interfaces to
On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 02:22 +0200, Daniel Fischer wrote:
Am Mittwoch, 15. Oktober 2008 00:34 schrieb Derek Elkins:
It's not technically true. Type classes and interfaces a la Java are
very fundamentally different neither is remotely capable of doing what
the other does.
Could you
John Lato wrote:
Are you advocating introducing existential types to beginning
Haskellers? I think something with the scary name existential
quantification would greatly increase the head'splodin' on the
learnin' slope.
OOP(*) advocates introducing existential types to beginning programmers.
Derek Elkins wrote:
On Wed, 2008-10-15 at 05:39 +0800, Lennart Augustsson wrote:
I don't think there's anything weird about existential types, except
an unfamiliar name.
Agreed. I'm extremely tired of the I haven't heard this term therefore
it must be 'scary' and complicated and beyond me
19 matches
Mail list logo
