I agree.<div><br></div><div>I think I got it, without the ability to correctly match equivalent morphisms, morphisms can't be treated as objects.</div><div><br></div><div>Probably such ability would require a very powerful runtime, but I don't think that it would be just matter of expressivity (and you would not loose referential transparency as (+3) would be matched with (\x -> 5 + x - 2).</div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Giacomo</div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Daniel Fischer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:daniel.is.fischer@googlemail.com">daniel.is.fischer@googlemail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="im">On Thursday 08 December 2011, 07:14:39, Brent Yorgey wrote:<br>
> I, for one, am not<br>
> willing to give up these beautiful and powerful reasoning tools just<br>
> for a little gain in expressivity.<br>
><br>
> -Brent<br>
<br>
</div>Seconded,<br>
<br>
Daniel<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Beginners mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Beginners@haskell.org">Beginners@haskell.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners" target="_blank">http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/beginners</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>