Proposal: Add Compositor class as superclass of Arrow
ashley at semantic.org
Mon Oct 22 22:23:29 EDT 2007
On Sun, 2007-10-21 at 22:04 +0200, apfelmus wrote:
> Twan van Laarhoven wrote:
> > My proposal would be the following. The important things are that:
> > 1. It incorporates Conal's deep arrow,
> > 2. as well as everything that is needed for functional
> > references/lenses and bijective/invertible functions.
> I'd opt for more research for that proposal to answer the following
> essential questions:
> - Do the classes correspond to already-known categories, i.e. are the
> class names optimal?
> - What laws do we expect to hold?
> - Are the signatures minimal, i.e. does there exist a smaller set of
> combinators that still achieves the intended effect? Are the signatures
> complete, i.e. can the intended effect always expressed with the given
> - Plenty and useful examples? At least enough examples that fit in the
> fine grained hierarchy but cannot be fit into a coarser grained one so
> as to demonstrate the necessity of a fine grained hierarchy.
I tend to agree. Rather than being part of this change, it might be
better for someone to work on this as a separate library, and then make
a proposal to redefine the Arrow classes once it's well-understood and
More information about the Libraries