re: the importance of existential-cleansing On the one hand, it's easy to concur that existentials are simpler than the alternatives, the tortuous elimination of CC Shan's "translucent" existential being a case in point.
And it's also easy to dismiss such caprice as a penchant for Houdinian escape perversities. Then again, why not? There may never be a real need for anything particular at all, existentials notwithstanding. Affirming that by cracking open the shackles of icons and diabolical shibboleths is arguably the only "real need." Lennart Augustsson wrote: > > What do you mean by need? From a theoretical or practical perspective? > We don't need them from a theoretical perspective, but in practice I'd > rather use existentials than encodinging them in some tricky way. > > On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 11:05 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The web page >> begs a question if there is ever any real need for existentials. >> > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Object-oriented-programming%2C-Haskell-and-existentials-tp19990499p20007420.html Sent from the Haskell - Haskell-Cafe mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe