Patrick Browne <patrick.bro...@dit.ie> wrote: > > > If we include super-classes would the following be an appropriate > > > mathematical representation? > > > > What is a superclass? What are the semantics? > > I assume that like a normal class a super-class *defines* a set > operations for types, but it is not *a set* of types. A sub-class can > use the signature and default methods of its super-class. I have no > particular super-class in mind.
So you basically just mean
class (Functor f) => Applicative f
where Functor is a superclass of Applicative? There is really nothing
special about that. Notice that type classes are a language feature
that is translated to a core language, which is essentially an extended
System F_omega. See below.
> Rather I am trying to make sense of how these Haskell objects are
> mathematically related.
They are mainly related by logic, in particular type theory. You may be
interested in System F_omega [1].
[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_F#System_F.CF.89
Greets,
Ertugrul
--
Key-ID: E5DD8D11 "Ertugrul Soeylemez <e...@ertes.de>"
FPrint: BD28 3E3F BE63 BADD 4157 9134 D56A 37FA E5DD 8D11
Keysrv: hkp://subkeys.pgp.net/
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
