On 16 Dec 2007, at 2:23 AM, Dominic Steinitz wrote:
keep in mind that Haskell composition (.)
is not really composition in the category-theoretic
sense, because it adds extra laziness. Use this
Do you have a counter-example of (.) not being function composition in
the categorical sense?
Let
On 16 Dec 2007, at 3:21 AM, Dominic Steinitz wrote:
Do you have a counter-example of (.) not being function
composition in
the categorical sense?
Let bot be the function defined by
bot :: alpha - beta
bot = bot
By definition,
(.) = \ f - \ g - \ x - f (g x)
Then
bot . id
= ((\ f - \
Am I correct in assuming that if my program doesn't contain seq then I
can reason using eta reduction?
You may be well aware of this, but the wiki page on the correctness
of short cut fusion (http://haskell.org/haskellwiki/
Correctness_of_short_cut_fusion) really helped me to get at least a
On 16 Dec 2007, at 9:47 AM, Dominic Steinitz wrote:
Jonathan Cast wrote:
On 16 Dec 2007, at 3:21 AM, Dominic Steinitz wrote:
Do you have a counter-example of (.) not being function
composition in
the categorical sense?
Let bot be the function defined by
bot :: alpha - beta
bot = bot
By
