3 ms·
Sorry for the confusion, JadeNB is correct: open type unions. For when you want plugin-like code without significant recompilations.
by rrobukef 9y ago
Sorry for the confusion, JadeNB is correct: open type unions. For when you want plugin-like code without significant recompilations.
- tome 9y agoOK, fine. Well in Haskell we have Dynamic. Of course matching on a Dynamic may fail, but that's OK because the basis for comparison is untyped languages! Matching on types can always fail there too.
- rrobukef 9y agoWith Dynamic, yes, but not with existential quantification. The type is a proof the type-class is implemented. I also didn't yet know Dynamic, thanks. I'm not that fluent in fp.