Jonathan Cast wrote: >>> The normal view taken by Haskellers is that the denotations of >>> Haskell types are CPPOs. >>> So: >>> (1) Must be monotone >>> (2) Must be continuous >>> (Needn't be strict, even though that messes up the resulting >>> category substantially).
I wrote: >> I'm not convinced that the category is all that "messed up". > Well, no coproducts (Haskell uses a lifted version of the coproduct > from CPO). What goes wrong with finite coproducts? The obvious thing to do would be to take the disjoint union of the sets representing the types, identifying the copies of _|_. What is the lifted version you are referring to? > Of course, Haskell makes things even worse by lifting the > product and exponential objects, OK, what goes wrong there, and what is the lifting? Thanks, Yitz _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
