[Haskell-cafe] Re: Article review: Category Theory

[Brian Hulley]

Lennart Augustsson wrote:

> On Jan 19, 2007, at 08:05 , apfelmus at quantentunnel.de wrote:
>> Thus, Hask is not a category, at least not as defined in the article.
>> The problem is that (either) morphisms or the morphism composition
>> ('.')
>> are not internalized correctly in Haskell.

>
> And this is why some of us think that adding polymorphic seq to
> Haskell was a mistake. :(

I've often wondered why seq is the primitive and not $!
Would this solve the problem?
Is there any solution that would allow excess laziness to be removed from a 
Haskell program such that Hask would be a category?

Thanks, Brian.
-- 
http://www.metamilk.com