clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> > You can certainly do things this way. There is a snag, however. If you
> > stick to Haskell 2010 (the currently published official language
> > specification), you cannot easily make a list of shapes. Because all the
> > elements of a list have to be of identical types. And (for example)
> > Sphere is not the same type as Plane, even if they do both implement the
> > Shape class (and possibly other classes like Eq or Show). There is no
> > way to say "a list of everything that has these methods".

> Heh. So standard Haskell obviously sucks as much as Java without generics.

Why exactly would you need generics in order to make a list of different
shapes? (Being able to do such a thing is kind of the very definition of
object-oriented programming.)

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message