3 ms·
Not with Haskell-style (or, rather, System F-omega-style) existentials, sure. But why not with strong existentials, like what you get with first-class modules i
by catnaroek 11y ago
Not with Haskell-style (or, rather, System F-omega-style) existentials, sure. But why not with strong existentials, like what you get with first-class modules in OCaml or 1ML?
- lmm 11y agoAt that point this is just semantics. I find the phrase "path-dependent types" useful and intuitive (though admittedly easily confused with "dependent types"); maybe we could use that phrase to describe what OCaml has too?