Excellent! This has all been very helpful. Thanks a lot everybody! :-) -Corey
On 12/14/07, Benja Fallenstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Corey, > > On Dec 14, 2007 8:44 PM, Corey O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The reason I find all this odd is because I'm not sure how the type > > class Functor relates to the category theory concept of a functor. How > > does declaring a type constructor to be an instance of the Functor > > class relate to a functor? Is the type constructor considered a > > functor? > > Recall the definition of functor. From Wikipedia: > > "A functor F from C to D is a mapping that > > * associates to each object X in C an object F(X) in D, > * associates to each morphism f:X -> Y in C a morphism F(f):F(X) > -> F(Y) in D > > such that the following two properties hold: > > * F(idX) = idF(X) for every object X in C > * F(g . f) = F(g) . F(f) for all morphisms f:X -> Y and g:Y -> Z." > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functor > > We consider C = D = the category of types. Note that any type > constructor is a mapping from types to types -- thus it associates to > each object (type) X an object (type) F(X). > > Declaring a type constructor to be an instance of Functor means that > you have to provide 'fmap :: (a -> b) -> (f a -> f b)" -- that is, a > mapping that associates to each morphism (function) "fn :: a -> b" a > morphism "fmap fn :: f a -> f b". > > Making sure that the two laws are fulfilled is the responsibility of > the programmer writing the instance of Functor. (I.e., you're not > supposed to do this: instance Functor Val where fmap f (Val x) = Val > (x+1).) > > Hope this helps with seeing the correspondence? :-) > - Benja > -- -Corey O'Connor _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
