2 ms·
I don’t think that’s correct. The author’s point is that structural typing is possible in statically-typed languages, but isn’t a thing in Haskell. To learn mo
by yakshaving_jgt 7y ago
I don’t think that’s correct. The author’s point is that structural typing is possible in statically-typed languages, but isn’t a thing in Haskell.
To learn more, Google for “Haskell row polymorphism”.
The author correctly points out that structural vs nominal is a separate argument from static vs dynamic.
- zozbot234 7y agoThe whole point of row polymorphism (for both records and variants) is that it allow for implementing open types in a static typing context. And OCaml supports this out of the box whereas Haskell does not.
- yakshaving_jgt 7y agoYes, that’s true. I’m not disputing that. Perhaps I misinterpreted your previous comment. I think the point I want to make is that in the argument between static vs dynamic, the structural vs nominal argument is not really relevant.