Existential types: want better syntactic support (autoboxing?)

[S.J.Thompson]

Johannes - thanks for the pointer to this posting; would you have a
concrete proposal to make on the basis of this for Haskell'?

Regards

Simon Thompson

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006, Johannes Waldmann wrote:

> It is standard practice to hide implementation details,
> in particular, not publishing the type of an object,
> but just the interfaces that its type implements. We can do this
> with existential types but the notation feels clumsy. See my message
> http://www.haskell.org//pipermail/haskell-cafe/2005-June/010516.html
>