On 2006-09-12, Jacques Carette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > First, as already pointed out in > http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/2006-April/015404.html > 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 practice. > This is an old conversation, see > http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell/2005-October/016621.html > for example. Thanks. The ML interface paper looks quite interesting. Are you aware of any implementations? -- Aaron Denney -><- _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe