On Wed, 7 Feb 2007, Benjamin Franksen wrote:
Udo Stenzel wrote:
Benjamin Franksen wrote:
Udo Stenzel wrote:
Sure, you're right, everything flowing in the same direction is usually
nicer, and in central Europe, that order is from the left to the right.
What a shame that the Haskell gods chose
A way to categorify elements of objects in a cartesian closed category
(such as that that sufficiently restricted Haskell takes place in) are
to view entities of type A as maps () - A.Mikael Johansson wrote:
This rather inconveniently clashes with the fact that A and () - A are
two distinct
On Wed, 7 Feb 2007, Dan Weston wrote:
A way to categorify elements of objects in a cartesian closed category
(such as that that sufficiently restricted Haskell takes place in) are
to view entities of type A as maps () - A.Mikael Johansson wrote:
This rather inconveniently clashes with the
Mikael Johansson wrote:
A way to categorify elements of objects in a
cartesian closed category (such as that that
sufficiently restricted Haskell takes place in)
are to view entities of type A as maps () - A.
Dan Weston wrote:
This rather inconveniently clashes with the fact that
A and () -
Udo Stenzel wrote:
Benjamin Franksen wrote:
Udo Stenzel wrote:
Sure, you're right, everything flowing in the same direction is usually
nicer, and in central Europe, that order is from the left to the right.
What a shame that the Haskell gods chose to give the arguments to (.)
and ($) the
