Skip to content

Is it sufficient to consider control operators? #5

Open
@tomjaguarpaw

Description

@tomjaguarpaw

Perhaps we don't have to consider arrows as separate from control operators. Given f :: arr a b we can write e = (>>> f) :: arr e a -> arr e b. Following definition 4 (page 5) of "A new notation for arrows" we need to check that "e satisfies a ... naturality property"

e ((k ~> θ1) x1) ... ((k ~> θn) xn) = (k ~> θ) (e x1 ... xn)

For our e this amounts to showing that e ((arr k >>>) x) = (arr k >>>) (e x) which indeed holds. Thus every arrow gives rise to a control operator. On the other hand we can recover the arrow from the control operator: f = e id.

Therefore it seems that considering control operators only is sufficient.

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Projects

    No projects

    Milestone

    No milestone

    Relationships

    None yet

    Development

    No branches or pull requests

    Issue actions