Re: Existential types: want better syntactic support (autoboxing?)

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