On Sep 28, 2006, at 00:38, Jeremy Gibbons wrote:
Perhaps the key is that there exist types P and Q s.t. there's an
isomorphism
F a = (P - a,Q)
F is Naperian iff there's a P with F a = P - a; but what's the Q for?
This seems to be intuitively Napierian:
ln (P - a,Q) = (P,ln a) | ln
On 2006-09-28, Ashley Yakeley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey Ross, Conor, Idiom is a better name than Applicative. Pretty
much everyone thinks so.
I don't! Idiom doesn't tell me anything. Applicative at least tries
to.
--
Aaron Denney
--
___
Jeremy Gibbons wrote:
I haven't assimilated the forall here, but datatypes with only one shape
of data have been called Naperian by Peter Hancock (because they
support a notion of logarithm), and they're instances of McBride and
Paterson's idioms or applicative functors.
I wrote:
Perhaps the key is that there exist types P and Q s.t. there's an
isomorphism
F a = (P - a,Q)
This seems to be intuitively Napierian:
ln (P - a,Q) = (P,ln a) | ln Q
I can believe that Hoistables are in fact Idioms, though I know there
are Idioms that are not Hoistables (Maybe
