Difference between revisions of "Talk:OOP vs type classes"
Jump to navigation
Jump to 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)