Alex Martelli wrote: > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Alex Martelli wrote: > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > those convoluted templates that were added to the language as > > > > > an afterthought. > > > > I don't see this in Haskell. > > > > > > Well, historically templates HAVE been added to Haskell "as an > > > afterthought" (well after the rest of the language was done), and > > > judging mostly from > > > <http://research.microsoft.com/~simonpj/papers/meta-haskell/meta-haskell > > > .ps> it doesn't seem unfair to call them "convoluted"... > > > > > I think I was talking about the need to add templates in order for > > writing generic functions that was mentioned(see the example given > > about sum), not in the context you are talking about. You seem to have > > skipped the other half of the text I quoted. > > Right, you can get good genericity with Haskell's typeclasses (I've > posted about that often in the past, and desperately and so far > unsuccessfully tried to convince Guido to use something close to > typeclasses rather than "interfaces" for such purposes as PEP 246 > [protocol adaptation]); it's the state of _templates_ in Haskell, > specifically, which I was rather dubious about (it may be that I just > haven't dug into them deep enough yet, but they do seem not a little > "convoluted" to me, so far). > Yup, the templates is an afterthought and the point of discussion by Lispers(?) too. I have no idea what it is intended for, there must be some need for it but definitely beyond what I can handle.
-- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
