On Sat, 6 Nov 2010, Sebastian Fischer wrote:
Hello,
I'm curious and go a bit off topic triggered by your statement:
On Nov 6, 2010, at 12:49 PM, rocon...@theorem.ca wrote:
An applicative functor morphism is a polymorphic function,
eta : forall a. A1 a -> A2 a between two applicative functors A1 and A2
that preserve pure and <*>
I recently wondered: why "morphism" and not "homomorphism"?
Morphisms can be more general than homomorphisms. But in this case I mean
the morphisms which are homomorphisms. I was too lazy to write out the
whole word.
--
Russell O'Connor <http://r6.ca/>
``All talk about `theft,''' the general counsel of the American Graphophone
Company wrote, ``is the merest claptrap, for there exists no property in
ideas musical, literary or artistic, except as defined by statute.''
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
