[Haskell-cafe] Object oriented haskell.
magnus at therning.org
Thu May 15 22:57:49 UTC 2014
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 12:47:40AM +0200, silvio wrote:
>> Firstly, a notation where you put the first argument before the
>> [1,2,3] . length -> 3
>> Secondly, mimic the multilayered namespaces that is commonly found
>> in mainstream imperative OO languages?
>> [1,2,3] . length -> 3::Int
>> aPieceOfString . length -> 120.0::Double
>> Just trying to understand what problem you are actually trying to
>> solve. I've *never* thought of (.) being powerful in OO languages,
>> mostly because I don't really think the dot is what makes an OO
> That's essentially it. I see that people on this thread where
> thinking more along the lines of inheritance. So let me add that it
> shouldn't be difficult to add the instances you want for your child
> object and then make a default instance which reverts to the parent
> object. It's a bit of a problem for updating stuff in a functional
> way since you can never be sure if a method is ment to return an
> object or if this is supposed to be an update. But for things in
> IO/STM/... it should be fine.
Excellent, then at least understand what you are after. I was
confused by the ensuing discussion, because it so quickly moved away
from what I thought you were really proposing.
To be honest I've more often missed Haskell's (.) when programming in
C/C++/C# than the other way around ;)
Magnus Therning OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4
email: magnus at therning.org jabber: magnus at therning.org
twitter: magthe http://therning.org/magnus
I invented the term Object-Oriented, and I can tell you I did not have
C++ in mind.
-- Alan Kay
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Haskell-Cafe