[Haskell-cafe] 3 level hierarchy of Haskell objects
es at ertes.de
Wed Aug 8 20:40:24 CEST 2012
Patrick Browne <patrick.browne at dit.ie> wrote:
> > > If we include super-classes would the following be an appropriate
> > > mathematical representation?
> > What is a superclass? What are the semantics?
> I assume that like a normal class a super-class *defines* a set
> operations for types, but it is not *a set* of types. A sub-class can
> use the signature and default methods of its super-class. I have no
> particular super-class in mind.
So you basically just mean
class (Functor f) => Applicative f
where Functor is a superclass of Applicative? There is really nothing
special about that. Notice that type classes are a language feature
that is translated to a core language, which is essentially an extended
System F_omega. See below.
> Rather I am trying to make sense of how these Haskell objects are
> mathematically related.
They are mainly related by logic, in particular type theory. You may be
interested in System F_omega .
Key-ID: E5DD8D11 "Ertugrul Soeylemez <es at ertes.de>"
FPrint: BD28 3E3F BE63 BADD 4157 9134 D56A 37FA E5DD 8D11
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Haskell-Cafe