<div dir="ltr">On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:00 AM, harry <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:voldermort@hotmail.com" target="_blank">voldermort@hotmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34)">So so rephrase my question, why can't type classes be used as a type? Is</span><br>
</div>
this an implementation issues, or is there a semantic problem with this?<br>
Creating an existential type and packing all the values seems like busy work<br>
which shouldn't be necessary, or at least something that the compiler should<br>
be doing for me.</blockquote><div><br></div><div style>Haskell is strongly typed; if you want to throw out all the type information, you must tell if explicitly (which is what the existential does). This comes at a price, of course: once you've thrown out the type information, you can't get it back.</div>
</div><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr"><div>brandon s allbery kf8nh sine nomine associates</div><div><a href="mailto:allbery.b@gmail.com" target="_blank">allbery.b@gmail.com</a> <a href="mailto:ballbery@sinenomine.net" target="_blank">ballbery@sinenomine.net</a></div>
<div>unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad <a href="http://sinenomine.net" target="_blank">http://sinenomine.net</a></div></div>
</div></div>