Difference between revisions of "Talk:Hask"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Created page with "= The category actually does not exist = See http://math.andrej.com/2016/08/06/hask-is-not-a-category/ It would be better to clearly define Hask, and either fix it to be a c...") |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
It would be better to clearly define Hask, and either fix it to be a category, or admit it is not a category with a clear explanation of what is broken and what can be saved. (Formalize fast-and-loose reasoning.) |
It would be better to clearly define Hask, and either fix it to be a category, or admit it is not a category with a clear explanation of what is broken and what can be saved. (Formalize fast-and-loose reasoning.) |
||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Looks like some of the information in the table is wrong. <hask>u2 _ = ()</hask> is of type <hask>Empty -> ()</hask>, not <hask>Empty -> a</hask>. As it stands, we don't have a real failure condition for the terminal object and arrow if you accept <hask>undefined :: Empty</hask>. |
||
Latest revision as of 17:54, 3 December 2019
The category actually does not exist
See http://math.andrej.com/2016/08/06/hask-is-not-a-category/
It would be better to clearly define Hask, and either fix it to be a category, or admit it is not a category with a clear explanation of what is broken and what can be saved. (Formalize fast-and-loose reasoning.)
Looks like some of the information in the table is wrong. u2 _ = () is of type Empty -> (), not Empty -> a. As it stands, we don't have a real failure condition for the terminal object and arrow if you accept undefined :: Empty.