Talk:Catamorphism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| WikiProject Computer science | (Rated C-class, Mid-importance) | |||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
 To-do list for Catamorphism: |
|
|---|---|
|
|
[edit] What?
The definition was obtuse and the example in Haskel is weird!
When one has to flip through links to understand what a definition was trying to say, such a definition is of little value in and of itself. Such definitions are in fact a thin plastic film and not a thick juicy stake!
Additionally, perhaps use of 'actual' computer languages should be avoid in favor of pseudo code that permits more appropriate and clarifying contextual information (as well as spurious cluttering detail). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.114.248.239 (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- I wholeheartedly agree with the above. I know a little haskell, and the code in the page as it now stands does not appear correct, or at the very least, totally unidiomatic. I'm going to try to change it. HLwiKi (talk) 04:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
-
- It's correct but indeed unidiomatic. I've restored the older example. —Ruud 15:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
-
- Unfortunately, you do lose some symmetry between the datatype and the algebra when not writing the datatype down in GADT notation. —Ruud 15:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
