[Haskell-cafe] Re: OOP'er with (hopefully) trivial questions.....

2007-12-17 Thread apfelmus
Nicholls, Mark wrote: data Shape = Circle Int | Rectangle Int Int | Square Int Isn't this now closed...i.e. the statement is effectively defining that shape is this and only ever thisi.e. can I in another module add new types of Shape? Yes, but in most cases,

RE: [Haskell-cafe] Re: OOP'er with (hopefully) trivial questions.....

2007-12-17 Thread Nicholls, Mark
Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of apfelmus Sent: 17 December 2007 12:34 To: haskell-cafe@haskell.org Subject: [Haskell-cafe] Re: OOP'er with (hopefully) trivial questions. Nicholls, Mark wrote: data Shape = Circle Int | Rectangle Int

RE: [Haskell-cafe] Re: OOP'er with (hopefully) trivial questions.....

2007-12-17 Thread Bayley, Alistair
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Nicholls, Mark The open case (as in OO) seems to be more like the Haskell class construct, i.e. if new types declare themselves to be members of a class then they must satisfy certain constaintsI can then specify equals

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: OOP'er with (hopefully) trivial questions.....

2007-12-17 Thread Sebastian Sylvan
On Dec 17, 2007 1:18 PM, Nicholls, Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Not really with this... The open case (as in OO) seems to be more like the Haskell class construct, i.e. if new types declare themselves to be members of a class then they must satisfy certain constaintsI can then specify

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: OOP'er with (hopefully) trivial questions.....

2007-12-17 Thread David Menendez
On Dec 17, 2007 8:18 AM, Nicholls, Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The approach is deliberate...but I accept may be harder than it needs to be...I'm interested in Haskell because of the alleged power/formality of it's type system against the relatively weakness of OO ones...the irony at the

[Haskell-cafe] Re: OOP'er with (hopefully) trivial questions.....

2007-12-17 Thread Peter Hercek
Thomas Davie wrote: Take a look at the Typable class. Although, pretty much any code that you can compile can be loaded into ghci without modification, and that's by far the easier way of finding the types of things. Is there a way to make ghci to know also the symbols which are not

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: OOP'er with (hopefully) trivial questions.....

2007-12-17 Thread Luke Palmer
There was a thread about this recently. In any case, if you load the code interpreted (which happens if there is no .o or .hi file of the module lying around), then you can look inside all you want. But if it loads compiled, then you only have access to the exported symbols. The reason is

[Haskell-cafe] Re: OOP'er with (hopefully) trivial questions.....

2007-12-17 Thread Peter Hercek
Luke Palmer wrote: There was a thread about this recently. In any case, if you load the code interpreted (which happens if there is no .o or .hi file of the module lying around), then you can look inside all you want. But if it loads compiled, then you only have access to the exported symbols.