On Mon, 2007-12-17 at 22:12 +0300, Miguel Mitrofanov wrote: > > There's a third way, too, and I haven't seen anybody mention it yet > > I've noticed it, but there are some problems with this > representation, so I decided not to mention it. It's OK as far as we > don't want functions working on two areas - I don't see, how we can > implement, say, intersect :: Shape -> Shape -> Bool in this way. > However, it's a useful pattern.
And how do you do it in a "typical" OO language like Java or C# or Smalltalk? _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe