Would a type class "between" Category and Arrow make sense?

Viewed 1102

Often you have something like an Applicative without pure, or something like a Monad, but without return. The semigroupoid package covers these cases with Apply and Bind. Now I'm in a similar situation concerning Arrow, where I can't define a meaningful arr function, but I think the other functions would make perfect sense.

I defined a type that holds a function and it's reverse function:

import Control.Category

data Rev a b = Rev (a -> b) (b -> a)

reverse (Rev f g) = Rev g f
apply (Rev f _) x = f x
applyReverse (Rev _ g) y = g y
compose (Rev f f') (Rev g g') = Rev ((Prelude..) f g) ((Prelude..) g' f') 

instance Category Rev where
  id = Rev Prelude.id Prelude.id
  (.) x y = compose x y 

Now I can't implement Arrow, but something weaker:

--"Ow" is an "Arrow" without "arr"
class Category a => Ow a where
  first :: a b c -> a (b,d) (c,d)
  first f = stars f Control.Category.id

  second :: a b c -> a (d,b) (d,c)
  second f = stars Control.Category.id f

  --same as (***)
  stars :: a b c -> a b' c' -> a (b,b') (c,c')

 ...
 import Control.Arrow 

 instance Ow Rev where
    stars (Rev f f') (Rev g g') = Rev (f *** g) (f' *** g')  

I think I can't implement the equivalent of &&&, as it is defined as f &&& g = arr (\b -> (b,b)) >>> f *** g, and (\b -> (b,b)) isn't reversable. Still, do you think this weaker type class could be useful? Does it even make sense from a theoretical point of view?

2 Answers
Related