Very true. I oversimplified matters by mistake.

One question, I suppose, is does seq distinguish the arrows, or does it distinguish the exponential objects in the category? since you are using it as an object in order to apply seq, and does that distinction matter? I'd hazard not, but its curious to me.

2010/3/26 David Menendez <dave@zednenem.com>
On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 11:07 AM, Edward Kmett <ekmett@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 11:04 AM, Edward Kmett <ekmett@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> -- as long as you're ignoring 'seq'
>> terminateSeq :: a -> Unit
>> terminateSeq a = a `seq` unit
>>
>
> Er ignore that language about seq. a `seq` unit is either another bottom or
> undefined, so there remains one canonical morphism even in the presence of
> seq (ignoring unsafePerformIO) =)

It all depends on how you define equality for functions. If you mean
indistinguishable in contexts which may involve seq, then there are at
least two values of type Unit -> ().

foo :: (Unit -> ()) -> ()
foo x = x `seq` ()

foo terminate = ()
foo undefined = undefined

Even this uses the convention that undefined = error "whatever" =
loop, which isn't technically true, since you can use exception
handling to write code which treats them differently.

--
Dave Menendez <dave@zednenem.com>
<http://www.eyrie.org/~zednenem/>