Difference between revisions of "Talk:Curry-Howard-Lambek correspondence"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Uchchwhash (talk | contribs) |
BrettGiles (talk | contribs) m (Response) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
: Possibly. Personally, I didn't rename the page as it is seems to be more widely known just as "Curry-Howard" (e.g., wikipedia page is "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry-Howard Curry-Howard]").[[User:BrettGiles|BrettGiles]] 16:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC) |
: Possibly. Personally, I didn't rename the page as it is seems to be more widely known just as "Curry-Howard" (e.g., wikipedia page is "[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curry-Howard Curry-Howard]").[[User:BrettGiles|BrettGiles]] 16:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC) |
||
:: Well, who cares. Curry-Howard is not descriptive enough for the special case of Haskell. Curry-Howard is very flexible. Works even for Pascal. Haskell seems more inclined to category theory these days, looks like the third part deserves more attention. --[[User:Uchchwhash|Pirated Dreams]] 06:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC) |
:: Well, who cares. Curry-Howard is not descriptive enough for the special case of Haskell. Curry-Howard is very flexible. Works even for Pascal. Haskell seems more inclined to category theory these days, looks like the third part deserves more attention. --[[User:Uchchwhash|Pirated Dreams]] 06:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC) |
||
| + | ::: Quite possibly, no one :). I was just giving my thoughts on why I hadn't renamed it, even though I had added the point about Lambek and CCC's. I'm happy to have it be "Curry-Howard-Lambek".[[User:BrettGiles|BrettGiles]] 21:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 21:03, 6 November 2006
Should this page be renamed Curry-Howard-Lambek correspondence? Makes a lot more sense that way. --Pirated Dreams 14:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Possibly. Personally, I didn't rename the page as it is seems to be more widely known just as "Curry-Howard" (e.g., wikipedia page is "Curry-Howard").BrettGiles 16:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, who cares. Curry-Howard is not descriptive enough for the special case of Haskell. Curry-Howard is very flexible. Works even for Pascal. Haskell seems more inclined to category theory these days, looks like the third part deserves more attention. --Pirated Dreams 06:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- Quite possibly, no one :). I was just giving my thoughts on why I hadn't renamed it, even though I had added the point about Lambek and CCC's. I'm happy to have it be "Curry-Howard-Lambek".BrettGiles 21:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Well, who cares. Curry-Howard is not descriptive enough for the special case of Haskell. Curry-Howard is very flexible. Works even for Pascal. Haskell seems more inclined to category theory these days, looks like the third part deserves more attention. --Pirated Dreams 06:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)