Difference between revisions of "Talk:OOP vs type classes"
Uchchwhash (talk | contribs) (agreed) |
Uchchwhash (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
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) |
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) |
||
| − | I think Bulat wants to write a detailed tutorial himself and wants our contribution and comments. yes, this is difficult to collaborate on. |
+ | I think Bulat wants to write a detailed tutorial himself and wants our contribution and comments. yes, this is difficult to collaborate on. --[[User:Uchchwhash|Pirated Dreams]] 09:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 09:54, 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)
I think Bulat wants to write a detailed tutorial himself and wants our contribution and comments. yes, this is difficult to collaborate on. --Pirated Dreams 09:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)