3 ms·
Are the arrows presented in the paper, something you think I should really familiarize myself with and use? I did a deep dive into lambda calculus over the pas
by fallat 7y ago
Are the arrows presented in the paper, something you think I should really familiarize myself with and use?
I did a deep dive into lambda calculus over the past year and I noticed similar limitations you mention. So this seems interesting.
I have seen arrows before but they just seem like a re-hash of the other lambda-like calculi. But maybe this paper's version of arrows is different?
- Ericson2314 7y agoI think it's worth it. Everything is lambda-in-a-straight-jacket-like. The question is how can you mix and match straight jackets, and how convoluted is programming. Also look at https://github.com/conal/concat https://github.com/conal/concat
- zozbot234 7y agoCategorical logic reframes the lambda calculus as being "simply" the internal language of cartesian-closed categories. Doing the same for other categories leads to other languages that are not so lambda-like. Sometimes categories are best characterized by graphical languages, as seen in string diagrams and generalizations thereof. Studying these things involves a rather thriving subfield at the intersection of PLT, category theory and foundational mathematics/logic.