>Even the parts of Haskell that have the flavor of category theory aren't really all that much like category theory. Can you expound on this? Just because the

>Even the parts of Haskell that have the flavor of category theory aren't really all that much like category theory. Can you expound on this? Just because the type classes defined in Haskell can't represent a wider range of categorical structures they purport to capture, does not mean that more structure doesn't exist throughout a Haskell code base. For instance, many argue that the only type of functors used in Haskell are endofunctors, but thats not really true unless we have a narrow definition of 'functors used in haskell', no?