[Haskell-cafe] Object-oriented programming, Haskell and existentials

[Kim-Ee Yeoh]

re: the importance of existential-cleansing   

On the one hand, it's easy to concur that existentials are simpler
than the alternatives, the tortuous elimination of CC Shan's
"translucent" existential being a case in point.

And it's also easy to dismiss such caprice as a penchant for Houdinian
escape perversities.  

Then again, why not?  There may never be a real need for anything
particular at all, existentials notwithstanding.  Affirming that by
cracking open the shackles of icons and diabolical shibboleths is
arguably the only "real need."


Lennart Augustsson wrote:
> 
> What do you mean by need?  From a theoretical or practical perspective?
> We don't need them from a theoretical perspective, but in practice I'd
> rather use existentials than encodinging them in some tricky way.
> 
> On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 11:05 AM,  <oleg at okmij.org> wrote:
>> The web page
>> begs a question if there is ever any real need for existentials.
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
> 
> 

-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Object-oriented-programming%2C-Haskell-and-existentials-tp19990499p20007420.html
Sent from the Haskell - Haskell-Cafe mailing list archive at Nabble.com.