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
On Thu, Feb 5, 2009 at 10:32 PM, Dan Weston wrote:
> I truly have no idea what you are saying (and probably not even what I am
> saying), but I suspect:
>
> a) You are calling IO the target category of applying the functor IO [taking
> a to IO a and (a->b) to (IO a -> IO b)] to Hask.
>
> b) This c
On 6 Feb 2009, at 05:52, 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.
What couldn't? Ev
I truly have no idea what you are saying (and probably not even what I
am saying), but I suspect:
a) You are calling IO the target category of applying the functor IO
[taking a to IO a and (a->b) to (IO a -> IO b)] to Hask.
b) This category is hardly bereft, nor discrete. Its morphisms are IO
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.
b) If it is a category, what are its morphisms? I think the answer
