On 3/10/07, Robert Dockins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm pretty sure you can define a catamorphism for any regular algebraic data
type. I'm not 100% sure what the story is for non-regular (AKA nested)
datatypes.
They do exist:
Initial Algebra Semantics is Enough! Patricia Johann and Neil Gha
On 10/03/07, Joachim Breitner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Is there a name for these functions? "Characteristic Church Encoding
Functions" maybe? Are there more than these:
Catamorphisms is indeed the name I've heard.
--
-David House, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 03:43:41PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> some more ideas following from the last post. I noticed how the function
> Data.Maybe.maybe converts a Haskell Maybe into a Church encoded Maybe.
> Also, the if construct, interpreted as a function, converts a Bool into
>
On Saturday 10 March 2007 09:43, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> some more ideas following from the last post. I noticed how the function
> Data.Maybe.maybe converts a Haskell Maybe into a Church encoded Maybe.
> Also, the if construct, interpreted as a function, converts a Bool into
> a church e
On Sat, Mar 10, 2007 at 03:43:41PM +0100, Joachim Breitner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> some more ideas following from the last post. I noticed how the function
> Data.Maybe.maybe converts a Haskell Maybe into a Church encoded Maybe.
> Also, the if construct, interpreted as a function, converts a Bool into
>
Hi,
some more ideas following from the last post. I noticed how the function
Data.Maybe.maybe converts a Haskell Maybe into a Church encoded Maybe.
Also, the if construct, interpreted as a function, converts a Bool into
a church encoded Bool.
If lists are encoded as forall b. (a -> b -> b) -> b -
