On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Anton van Straaten <an...@appsolutions.com> wrote: >>> I still think existential quantification is a step too far though. :-P >> >> Seriously, existential quantification is a REALLY simple concept, that >> you would learn week two (or maybe three) in any introductory course >> on logic. In fact, I would argue that far more people probably know >> what existential quantification is than that know what a monoid is. >> :-) > > Andrew's core objection here seems reasonable to me. It was this: > >> {-# LANGUAGE ExistentialQuantification #-} is an absurd name and >> should be changed to something that, at a minimum, tells you it's >> something to do with the type system. > > But I suspect I part company from Andrew in thinking that something like > ExistentiallyQuantifiedTypes would be a perfectly fine alternative.
Well, I definitely agree to that, but that's not what he wrote in the post I answered. My point was that existential quantification is nowhere near scary. But yes - making the Types part explicit is certainly not a bad idea. +1 for ExistentiallyQuantifiedTypes. Cheers, /Niklas _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe