[Haskell-cafe] Comments from OCaml Hacker Brian Hurt

[Anton van Straaten]

Niklas Broberg wrote:
>> I still think existential quantification is a step too far though. :-P
> 
> Seriously, existential quantification is a REALLY simple concept, that
> you would learn week two (or maybe three) in any introductory course
> on logic. In fact, I would argue that far more people probably know
> what existential quantification is than that know what a monoid is.
> :-)

Andrew's core objection here seems reasonable to me.  It was this:

 > {-# LANGUAGE ExistentialQuantification #-} is an absurd name and
 > should be changed to something that, at a minimum, tells you it's
 > something to do with the type system.

But I suspect I part company from Andrew in thinking that something like 
ExistentiallyQuantifiedTypes would be a perfectly fine alternative.

Anton