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

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, wrote:

...

The web page begs a question if there is ever any real need for existentials.

_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@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-existential... Sent from the Haskell - Haskell-Cafe mailing list archive at Nabble.com.