diff options
| author | Tom Smeding <tom@tomsmeding.com> | 2021-09-14 14:45:50 +0200 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | Tom Smeding <tom@tomsmeding.com> | 2021-09-14 14:45:50 +0200 |
| commit | cc3b4084bc328023b20cdf14ea6e9be1f86d940c (patch) | |
| tree | 34fbf3130b6bb878a7933825a1822a19778ad685 /haskell | |
| parent | 85ffc2927b0eb5daedcd5a1c455518e985aed526 (diff) | |
Fix typo in haskell/composition
Diffstat (limited to 'haskell')
| -rw-r--r-- | haskell/composition.html | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | haskell/composition.md | 2 |
2 files changed, 2 insertions, 2 deletions
diff --git a/haskell/composition.html b/haskell/composition.html index d1d4afc..1d3d013 100644 --- a/haskell/composition.html +++ b/haskell/composition.html @@ -123,7 +123,7 @@ This is exactly like you may have learned that subtraction is left-associative ( (.) :: (b -> c) -> (a -> b) -> (a -> c) (.) :: (b -> c) -> ((a -> b) -> (a -> c)) </code></pre> -<p><small>(Why can't we remove the parentheses around the <code>b -> c</code> and <code>a -> c</code> in there? That is because it the type would then suddenly mean something different. Try to work that out for yourself!)</small></p> +<p><small>(Why can't we remove the parentheses around the <code>b -> c</code> and <code>a -> b</code> in there? That is because it the type would then suddenly mean something different. Try to work that out for yourself!)</small></p> <p>We can read this as: <code>(.)</code> takes a function <code>g :: b -> c</code>, a function <code>f :: a -> b</code> and a value <code>x :: a</code>. It applies <code>f</code> to <code>x</code>, applies <code>g</code> to the result, and returns the result of that. Indeed, <code>(.)</code> can be implemented like this:</p> diff --git a/haskell/composition.md b/haskell/composition.md index f6754a5..14f84cb 100644 --- a/haskell/composition.md +++ b/haskell/composition.md @@ -176,7 +176,7 @@ Now look again at the type of `(.)` (all three mean the same): (.) :: (b -> c) -> ((a -> b) -> (a -> c)) ``` -<small>(Why can't we remove the parentheses around the `b -> c` and `a -> c` in there? That is because it the type would then suddenly mean something different. Try to work that out for yourself!)</small> +<small>(Why can't we remove the parentheses around the `b -> c` and `a -> b` in there? That is because it the type would then suddenly mean something different. Try to work that out for yourself!)</small> We can read this as: `(.)` takes a function `g :: b -> c`, a function `f :: a -> b` and a value `x :: a`. It applies `f` to `x`, applies `g` to the result, and returns the result of that. |