On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 11:25 PM, Tony Morris <tonymor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > ...regardless of the utility of a contravariant functor type-class, I > strongly advocate for calling it Contrafunctor and not Cofunctor. I > have seen numerous examples of confusion over this, particularly in > other languages. > I don't personally care what's it called, as long as it's available. Can anybody point to an authoritative source for the terminology, though? Wikipedia claims that cofunctor is a contravariant functor. Also, is there anything in category theory equivalent to the Functor -> Applicative -> Monad hierarchy , but with a Cofunctor/Contrafunctor at the base? I'm just curious, I'm not advocating adding the entire hierarchy to the base library. ;)
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
