On Thu, 2009-02-05 at 20:52 -0600, Gregg Reynolds wrote:
> I'm working on a radically different way of looking at IO. Before I
> post it and make a fool of myself, I'd appreciate a reality check on
> the following points:
>
> a) Can IO be thought of as a category? I think the answer is yes.
No. At least not in any reasonable way.
> b) If it is a category, what are its morphisms? I think the answer
> is: it has no morphisms. The morphisms available are natural
> transformations or functors, and thus not /in/ the category.
> Alternatively: we have no means of directly naming its values, so the
> only way we can operate on its values is to use morphisms from the
> outside (operating on construction expressions qua morphisms.)
N/A
> c) All categories with no morphisms ("bereft categories"?) are
> isomorphic (to each other). I think yes.
No. "Discrete" categories which you seem to be talking about are
isomorphic to sets (namely their set of objects). Not all sets are
isomorphic.
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
