Hi, This isn't about Haskell per se, but I was reading the old Meijer et al. paper "Functional Programming with Bananas, Lenses, Envelopes and Barbed Wire" & I think there's a notational pun that's really confusing me. On page 12 we have the CataEval equation (|phi|) . in = phi . (|phi|)_L Now, the subscript L & the following example of cons lists implies that L is a functor in this equation, yet the line immediately after this equation says that "(CataEval) states how to evaluate an application of (|phi|) to an arbitrary element of L...." so then that makes it sound like the L here is the fixed point of some functor F, not the functor itself. I'm sure I'm just being dumb, but this is really bugging me. Thanks, Creighton Hogg
On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 07:37:50PM -0500, Creighton Hogg wrote:
This isn't about Haskell per se, but I was reading the old Meijer et al. paper "Functional Programming with Bananas, Lenses, Envelopes and Barbed Wire" & I think there's a notational pun that's really confusing me. On page 12 we have the CataEval equation (|phi|) . in = phi . (|phi|)_L Now, the subscript L & the following example of cons lists implies that L is a functor in this equation, yet the line immediately after this equation says that "(CataEval) states how to evaluate an application of (|phi|) to an arbitrary element of L...." so then that makes it sound like the L here is the fixed point of some functor F, not the functor itself.
Yes, the explanatory text should say mu L instead of L.
participants (2)
-
Creighton Hogg -
Ross Paterson