Personal tools

Talk:OOP vs type classes

From HaskellWiki

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 3: Line 3:
   
 
subtyping possible without existensuials, it's just "=>" in "class" declaration. as both me and John said, existensials just packs dictionary togehther with object what makes possible polymorphic lists and so on, i.e. using different _instances_ of the same class inside one list or other container, or in different arguments in function, [[User:Bulatz|Bulatz]] 15:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 
subtyping possible without existensuials, it's just "=>" in "class" declaration. as both me and John said, existensials just packs dictionary togehther with object what makes possible polymorphic lists and so on, i.e. using different _instances_ of the same class inside one list or other container, or in different arguments in function, [[User:Bulatz|Bulatz]] 15:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  +
  +
This is written in the first person in places, which makes it difficult to collaborate on. —[[User:Ashley Y|Ashley Y]] 09:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:25, 27 August 2006

Bulat, I think existential types somehow correspond to the idea of *subtyping* (as illustrated in the Existential type page, hope you can elaborate on that.

subtyping possible without existensuials, it's just "=>" in "class" declaration. as both me and John said, existensials just packs dictionary togehther with object what makes possible polymorphic lists and so on, i.e. using different _instances_ of the same class inside one list or other container, or in different arguments in function, Bulatz 15:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

This is written in the first person in places, which makes it difficult to collaborate on. —Ashley Y 09:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)