
Dan Piponi wrote:
> Derek Elkins wrote:
>
>> Yes, I have the same problem...Basically, I'm
>> pretty sure the construction of that free theorem doesn't rely on any
>> of the actual details...
>
> For a long time I've thought such a higher order free theorem must
> exist, and I've mentioned it to a few people, and searched hard for a
> paper on it, but I haven't seen an actual statement and proof.
>
>> At this point, though, I haven't put
>> much effort into proving that the free theorem holds uniformly
>
> Well I encourage you to as I've a hunch the correctly generalised
> theorem will be quite pretty. I'd have a go but the style of proof for
> these sorts of things is outside of my domain of
> confidence/experience.
This looks relevant:
Janis VoigtlÃnder.
Free Theorems Involving Type Constructor Classes.
http://wwwtcs.inf.tudresden.de/~voigt/icfp09.pdf
Regards,
Heinrich Apfelmus

http://apfelmus.nfshost.com
_______________________________________________
HaskellCafe mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskellcafe

