[Haskell-cafe] Relevance and applicability of category theory

Gabor Greif gabor at mac.com
Thu Jan 31 04:14:20 EST 2008

Am 31.01.2008 um 01:23 schrieb aaltman at pdx.edu:

> 3. I believe the documentation stating that Haskell arrows are a  
> generalization of Haskell monads, but arrows are a categorical  
> thing too and in that context bear a much more distant relationship  
> to monads.  Does a Haskell arrow have Hask as domain and codomain?   
> Or is one particular element in Hask its domain and possibly  
> another its codomain?  Those are not at all the same thing.

Without being able to dive into this matter now,
I just want to say that both the Haskell monads
and arrows can be generalized to something
I call a "thrist", which appears to be the moral
equivalent of a free category. The underlying
category is obtained by a two-parameter GADT
(defining the morphisms) and the domains and
codomains of its members (which are Haskell types)
being the objects.

Here is my blog entry that motivates the concept
a bit:




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20080131/e20ce86f/attachment.htm

More information about the Haskell-Cafe mailing list