 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 5. There is an optional extension to the Haskell programming language
>> called ExistentialQuantification. Can you guess what it does?
>
> Yes, because you've described it. I would have guessed it did
> existential quantification.
Existential quantification *of what*? ;-)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 5. There is an optional extension to the Haskell programming language
>> called ExistentialQuantification. Can you guess what it does?
>
> I can guess.
> some optimized condition|condition|condition ??
Actually, it's to do with special type signatures. (Basically it allows
you to manipulate something in a way that it's data type isn't "visible"
from the outside, only the inside.) Wasn't that so obvious? :-S
Like I said, *I* would have called it TypeVariableHiding. But everybody
else seems to think that's a stupid name...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Hell, does Oracle Corporation go "hey, this guy is trying to use our
> database product, but he doesn't even know about the relational algebra.
> We don't need him!" Um, no, I don't *think* so! Sure, if you're serious
Poor analogy. Haskell developers aren't trying to get rich by
developing it.
--
Factorials were made to make maths *look* interesting.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawaz org<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Hell, does Oracle Corporation go "hey, this guy is trying to use our
>> database product, but he doesn't even know about the relational algebra.
>> We don't need him!" Um, no, I don't *think* so! Sure, if you're serious
>
> Poor analogy. Haskell developers aren't trying to get rich by
> developing it.
OK, well how about this: Do the POV-Ray developers laugh at people who
don't know how a Sturmian root solver works? No, I think not.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>>> 5. There is an optional extension to the Haskell programming language
>>> called ExistentialQuantification. Can you guess what it does?
>>
>> Yes, because you've described it. I would have guessed it did
>> existential quantification.
>
> Existential quantification *of what*? ;-)
Of expression! ;-) ;-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Why is there a chainsaw in DOOM?
There aren't any trees on Mars.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> "Existential Quantification"
> "Type variable hiding"
>
> I got shouted at for suggesting the latter (which describes what the
> feature *does*) because the former "is much clearer to understand and
> has a far more precise meaning".
The former has a precise meaning in the realm of logic, while the latter in the
realm of Haskell. How many PHP, C++ or Java programmers would know what is a
"type variable" anyway? But perhaps all of them had some basic predicate
calculus instruction... even if they don't remember exact terms like me. :P
> Apparently the Haskell guys are so immersed in advanced mathematics that
> they have a completely skewed view of what "normal programmers" actually
> know about. :-P
You only noticed now? ;)
hmm, not that Scheme guys are much better in their pure theoretical
approaches... XP
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
