Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below
Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
That seems pretty exotic and out of place on a page that’s introducing such a basic aspect of type theory. What’s your goal in introducing it?
How about we reword the lead-in sentence (here) a little:
Where it says “Function types have categorical structure…” I’d think the more standard way to phrase this would be something like
Function types play the role of hom-objects in a kind of enriched category whose objects are the types.
and we could add in parenthesis
(In fact, in the presence of compatible product types this is a cartesian closed category-structure [cf. Lambek & Scott 1986])
to indicate that this is a classical observation.
What do you think?
1 to 7 of 7