[Haskell-cafe] Re: do we need types?

2010-02-26 Thread Johannes Waldmann 
A type is, well, a type.
A type class is a relation between types.

The confusion probably comes from OO programming 
where (interfaces) describe unary relations (= one parameter type classes).

(begin rant) I wouldn't easily give up algebraic data types 
just because OO programmers don't seem know about them -
so the re-invent them and call it composite pattern...



___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

[Haskell-cafe] Re: do we need types?

2010-02-26 Thread Maurí­cio CA 

A type class is a relation between types.


Yes, but not officially, just de facto:

http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/haskell-prime/ticket/90

Best,

Maurício

___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

[Haskell-cafe] Re: do we need types?

2010-02-26 Thread Pasqualino Titto Assini 
This seems quite relevant:

http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/3837

 titto
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: do we need types?

2010-02-26 Thread Daniel Fischer 
Am Freitag 26 Februar 2010 14:07:07 schrieb Johannes Waldmann:
 I wouldn't easily give up algebraic data types

Nor I. Without easily defined ADTs, Haskell wouldn't be nearly so awesome.
___
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe