3 ms·
No, the opposite. They're either specialized (when they can be) or (effectively) existential (when they must be). That is, the compiler either inlines the spe
by tome 3y ago
No, the opposite. They're either specialized (when they can be) or (effectively) existential (when they must be). That is, the compiler either inlines the specific definition of the type class methods if it knows them, or passes them around at run time.
- Ericson2314 3y agoAgreed, except I would not call it "existential" C++ stores references to dictionaries from/with the things they describe, that's "existential" Haskell passes in extra parmeters that are dictionaries and doesn't (except for user-written code that does) keep around extra references to them. That's more like "universal" than "existential".