Browse thread
Which syntax to teach ?
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | Vincent Aravantinos <vincent.aravantinos@y...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Re: Which syntax to teach ? |
Le 30 oct. 07 à 18:56, skaller a écrit : > On Tue, 2007-10-30 at 12:08 -0500, Edgar Friendly wrote: >> Brian Hurt wrote: >>> Chung-chieh Shan wrote: >>> >>>> Any tips on how (and perhaps how not) to teach functors? > > The problem teaching functors is that the essential feature > of functors is missing -- a functor is a structure preserving > map but there's no way to specify any structure other than > in comments. Indeed, I don't really see the link between Ocaml functors and Category ones (???). Could someone explain this ? Classically, types would be the objects and functions would be the arrows. But then a functor does not map a type to each original type neither a function to each original function. So what ? Maybe we could see all the module structures associated to a module signature form a category ? And then a (ocaml) functor would indeed be a (category) functor from the category associated to the signature of the parameter to the category of its returned module type. (?) Is this the way to go ? I thing I've read once that it was linked with "institutions" theory (of Goguen), is this right ? Thanks for answers, Vincent