[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       haskell-cafe
Subject:    Re: [Haskell-cafe] category design approach for inconvenient concepts
From:       Gábor_Lehel <illissius () gmail ! com>
Date:       2012-12-18 23:12:54
Message-ID: CAPNUp09Bm8NPGmkOqgmRc6vwbP1rA9tg8RbwbeAZSx=xTrj2TQ () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

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
> category, and proceeded to describe function composition. But here I am
> confused: If "functions" are a category, this would seem to imply (by
> the phrasing) that functions are the objects of the category. However,
> since we compose functions, and only morphisms are composed, it would
> follow that functions are actually morphisms. So, in the "function"
> category, are functions objects or morphisms? If they are morphisms,
> then what are the objects of the category?

Types.


(P.S. Thanks Ertugrul, for giving me a way to latch onto the meaning
of profunctors - now I'll have to go back to that package again and
see if it makes more sense...)

-- 
Your ship was destroyed in a monadic eruption.

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]