heathmatlock wrote: > Cute! I like it! Yea, it's cute. I don't like the formula, though: \x -> x + x is just too trivial and not very Haskellish. Something higher order is the minimum requirement, IMO. The original (lambda knights) formula was cool: the fixed point operator is directly related to recursion, which is reflected in the picture that contains itself; note also that defining this operator requires an untyped language, so this fits LISP quite well (but not Haskell).
What about the formula for function composition (f . g) x = f (g x) maybe together with its type (or maybe only the type) (.) :: (b -> c) -> (a -> b) -> a -> c Extremely cool are GADTs, such as data Eq a b where Refl :: Eq a a Or, if you'd like something more obscure but still at the center of what Haskell is about, take the mother of all monads m >>= f = \k -> m (\a -> (f a) k) This is a formula I can spend a day contemplating and still wonder if I have _really_ understood it. And doesn't that properly reflect the depth and richness of Haskell? Cheers Ben > On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 7:52 AM, Karol Samborski > <edv.ka...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> 2011/11/21 Karol Samborski <edv.ka...@gmail.com>: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > This is my sister's proposition: >> > http://origami.bieszczady.pl/images/The_Lamb_Da.png >> > >> > What do you think? >> > >> >> Second version: http://origami.bieszczady.pl/images/The_Lamb_Da2.png >> >> Best, >> Karol Samborski >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Haskell-Cafe mailing list >> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org >> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe >> > > > _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe