Post #3178134

thinking again about how natural transformations can really be thought of as natTrans :: (forall x y. (x -> y) -> f x -> g y) subject to a simple coherence condition: fmap f . natTrans g . fmap h = natTrans (f . g . h) or alternatively that fmap f . natTrans id = natTrans f = natTrans id . fmap f basically meaning that the mapping (x -> y) is not sequenced with the natural transformation f ~> g in either direction, but integral to it and it's just the tendency towards simpler primitives that is the reason we have natural transformations explained as (forall x. f x -> g x)