> I still don't like "Functor" as a name. That's still debatable, and which name do you prefer?
> I'd rather would like to change the > signature of "map" from > > map: (f: S -> S, %) -> % > > into > > map: (f: S -> S) -> (% -> %) > > and then it becomes clearer That seems like a good idea in my first glance, but it has one big disadvantage: Since % does not appear in parameter, you have to use @ to select it, because type inference will not work. Side note: Haskell doesn't have this problem because of currying, but I think currying has both advantages and disadvantages. "map:(S->S,%)->%" looks good to me. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FriCAS - computer algebra system" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/fricas-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
