On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 4:40 AM, Alexander Solla alex.so...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Oleksandr Manzyuk manz...@gmail.com
wrote:
I have no problems with the statement Objects of the category Hask
are Haskell types. Types are well-defined syntactic entities. But
On 12/21/12 3:27 AM, Oleksandr Manzyuk wrote:
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 4:40 AM, Alexander Solla alex.so...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't see how associativity fails, if we mod out alpha-equivalence. Can
you give an example? (If it involves the value undefined, I'll have
something concrete to add
On 12/17/12 9:45 PM, Christopher Howard wrote:
So you could have...
(coupler . thing) . gadget
Because the coupler and the thing would combine to create a component
with one spare connector. This would then combine with the gadget to
make the final component. However, if you did...
coupler .
On 12/18/12 5:03 PM, Christopher Howard wrote:
Since I received the two responses to my question, I've been trying to
think deeply about this subject, and go back and understand the core
ideas. I think the problem is that I really don't have a clear
understanding of the basics of category
the category of Haskell types and Haskell functions[1]
[1] Note that this may not actually work out to be a category, but the basic
idea is sound.
I would be curious to see this example carefully worked out. I often
hear that Haskell types and Haskell functions constitute a category,
but I
On Thu, 20 Dec 2012, Oleksandr Manzyuk manz...@gmail.com wrote:
the category of Haskell types and Haskell functions[1]
[1] Note that this may not actually work out to be a category, but the basic
idea is sound.
I would be curious to see this example carefully worked out. I often
hear that
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Oleksandr Manzyuk manz...@gmail.comwrote:
I have no problems with the statement Objects of the category Hask
are Haskell types. Types are well-defined syntactic entities. But
what is a morphism in the category Hask from a to b? Commonly, people
say
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 11:53 PM, Christopher Howard
christopher.how...@frigidcode.com wrote:
I really like the idea that all
parts of my program could be cleanly and systematically composed from
smaller pieces, in some beautiful design patter. Many of the problems in
my practical
I have also become intrigued and confused by this category theory and how
it relates to Haskell. It has been stated many times that you don't need to
understand category theory to utilize the Haskell language but all the
concepts, patterns and every paper describing them seems to be written by
Mark Flamer m...@flamerassoc.com wrote:
I have also become intrigued and confused by this category theory
and how it relates to Haskell. It has been stated many times that you
don't need to understand category theory to utilize the Haskell
language but all the concepts, patterns and every
On 12/17/2012 06:30 PM, Richard O'Keefe wrote:
On 18/12/2012, at 3:45 PM, Christopher Howard wrote:
It's basically the very old idea that an Abstract Data Type
should be a nice algebra: things that look as though they
ought to fit together should just work, and rearrangements
of things
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 11:03 PM, Christopher Howard
The original link I gave
http://www.haskellforall.com/2012_08_01_archive.html purposely skipped
over any discussion of objects, morphisms, domains, and codomains. The
author stated, in his first example, that Haskell functions are a
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012, Christopher Howard wrote:
On 12/17/2012 06:30 PM, Richard O'Keefe wrote:
On 18/12/2012, at 3:45 PM, Christopher Howard wrote:
It's basically the very old idea that an Abstract Data Type
should be a nice algebra: things that look as though they
ought to fit together
Christopher Howard christopher.how...@frigidcode.com wrote:
Since I received the two responses to my question, I've been trying to
think deeply about this subject, and go back and understand the core
ideas. I think the problem is that I really don't have a clear
understanding of the basics of
On 19/12/2012, at 11:03 AM, Christopher Howard wrote:
Since I received the two responses to my question, I've been trying to
think deeply about this subject, and go back and understand the core
ideas. I think the problem is that I really don't have a clear
understanding of the basics of
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 4:49 PM, Ertugrul Söylemez e...@ertes.de wrote:
These laws make morphisms isolated and composition lightweight as well
as undisturbing. Now try to transfer these notions to a concrete
category, for example the category of web servers: The objects are sets
and a
On 12/17/12 9:45 PM, Christopher Howard wrote:
However, what I'm wondering about is ideas that can be composed but
that don't seem to fit the idea of category, because they don't obey
the associativity law. To give a specific example (pseudo code like,
without any idea here of implementation or
On 12/18/2012 08:02 PM, Gershom Bazerman wrote:
On 12/17/12 9:45 PM, Christopher Howard wrote:
I don't think you're describing a Category in the sense of the Haskell
Category typeclass. But that's ok! Just because some things are
categories and are nice doesn't mean that we can't have other
Recently I read this article I happened across, about the categorical
design pattern:
http://www.haskellforall.com/2012/08/the-category-design-pattern.html
Barely understood it, of course, but it was a rather intriguing concept.
So now I'm looking at all my programming problems trying to make
On 18/12/2012, at 3:45 PM, Christopher Howard wrote:
Recently I read this article I happened across, about the categorical
design pattern:
http://www.haskellforall.com/2012/08/the-category-design-pattern.html
It's basically the very old idea that an Abstract Data Type
should be a nice
Christopher Howard christopher.how...@frigidcode.com wrote:
Say you created a type called Component (C for short), the idea
being to compose Components out of other Components. Every C has zero
or more connectors on it. Two Cs can be connected to form a new C
using some kind of composition
21 matches
Mail list logo
