[Haskell-cafe] Re: Numeric type classes
wnoise at ofb.net
Wed Sep 20 04:17:03 EDT 2006
On 2006-09-12, Jacques Carette <carette at mcmaster.ca> wrote:
> First, as already pointed out in
> there is a lot of relevant previous work in this area.
I'm afraid I don't see the relevance.
> This is very easy to do in 'raw' category theory, as concepts are not
> _nominal_, so a functor from one type to another can explicitly do a
> renaming if necessary.
Computer programming is of course extremely nominal to provide
abstraction and seperation of concerns. Yes, anonymous functions are
handy, but I could give them up if I had named local functions.
Yes, you can even go to unlambda and only use combinators. Practically
we find names extremely useful.
> Various algebraic specification languages have
> thus adopted this too, so that you are not forced to give unique names
> to all your concepts, you can in fact give them meaningful names 'in
> context', and use a remapping when you want to say that you obey a
> particular interface.
This sounds neat, but I'd be worried about how cumbersome it was in
> This is an old conversation, see
> for example.
Thanks. The ML interface paper looks quite interesting. Are you aware
of any implementations?
More information about the Haskell-Cafe