From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.3 (2006-06-01) on yquem.inria.fr X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.5 required=5.0 tests=DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE autolearn=disabled version=3.1.3 X-Original-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Delivered-To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Received: from mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr (mail4-relais-sop.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.105]) by yquem.inria.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 40BA3BBCA for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 10:07:28 +0100 (CET) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgAAAJC2xEfUGyojkWdsb2JhbACQaAEBAQEHBAYJCAgQnEs X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.25,412,1199660400"; d="scan'208";a="23094795" Received: from smtp5-g19.free.fr ([212.27.42.35]) by mail4-smtp-sop.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 27 Feb 2008 10:07:28 +0100 Received: from smtp5-g19.free.fr (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by smtp5-g19.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id ECCCC3F61C9 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 10:07:26 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.0.63] (ron34-3-82-236-236-194.fbx.proxad.net [82.236.236.194]) by smtp5-g19.free.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id A77623F61A7 for ; Wed, 27 Feb 2008 10:07:26 +0100 (CET) Subject: Categories for types From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Micha=EBl_Gr=FCnewald?= To: caml-list@yquem.inria.fr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 10:08:00 +0100 Message-Id: <1204103280.10964.16.camel@Llea.celt.neu> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.3 FreeBSD GNOME Team Port Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam: no; 0.00; ocaml:01 ocaml:01 functors:01 cheers:01 renewal:98 checking:02 strong:96 library:03 puzzled:04 suggests:04 types:05 types:05 readings:07 programmer:07 michael:07 Dear OCaml folks, I am an happy OCaml amateur programmer since many years now, and I ever wondered why the language has ``functors'' --- I was puzzled by the name. My curiosity had a renewal when I found this book in the math department library: Categories for types, by Crole. Before checking the book out, I would like to know if the term ``functor'' was chosen because they are actually functors. Maybe someone can also suggests other readings to me. (I have a strong math education, although I am not used to work with categories.) -- Cheers, Michaël