Re: Bulat's comments
1) adding OO-like features in O'Haskell style. for readers that don't know it's about adding new variants to ADT types:
type Figure = Circle ... type Figure |= Box ...
With ADTs you do pattern match on the constructor, but in OO style guides (see Fowler: Refactoring) you find that "switch statements" are considered bad design. Instead you would use the "Composite" design pattern interface Figure class Circle implements Figure class Box implements Figure this lets you add classes easily. Sure this is more verbose but it might be easier to maintain and extend. (Yes I know that mathematically a free algebra is a nice thing.)
and adding new fields to existing records:
type Point = {x,y::Int} type ColoredPoint = Point extended with {c::Color}
well I never would want to do that - and OO gurus do not recommend it either. See Gamma et al, Design patterns, Introduction, where they advise to use interface inheritance, but to avoid implementation inheritance. This is exactly the situation we have in Haskell. Best regards, -- -- Johannes Waldmann -- Tel/Fax (0341) 3076 6479/80 -- ---- http://www.imn.htwk-leipzig.de/~waldmann/ -------