|
From: | Ralf Hemmecke |
Subject: | Re: [Axiom-developer] Axisp news |
Date: | Tue, 26 Jun 2007 20:59:20 +0200 |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (X11/20070604) |
On 06/26/2007 08:07 PM, Stephen Wilson wrote:
Martin Rubey <address@hidden> writes:Dear Stephen, many thanks for your detailed answer. I must admit however, that I dislike your idea writing D(P : Polynomial (R : Ring)) : ... == ... for D(R : Ring, P : Polynomial R) : ... == ... Isn't this just syntactic sugar? My feeling (!) is that this will pose more questions than answers. Enforcing case sensitivity on values, domains and categories also does not look very appealing to me, sorry.It may be syntactic sugar for the sake of a function definition, but it implies a handling of types which diverges from how things are currently done.
I must say, no matter whether it is syntactic sugar or not, a definition of the form
(*) D(P : Polynomial (R : Ring)) : ... == ... would confuse me. How am I supposed to used that? Should I writeD(P) for some polynomial? (Note that Polynomial is a domain so P is an element.)
You probably don't mean that. So let's assume that Polynom(R) is a category. Now suppose I define define MyPolyCat:Category == Polynom(Integer) with ... MyPoly: MyPolyCat == add ... Now can I write D MyPoly ??? (Note that it doesn't exactly match your pattern (*).) Or should I rather write D(Integer, MyPoly) even with just the definition (*)? I cannot see that I would like such sugar. Ralf
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |