|
From: | Ralf Hemmecke |
Subject: | Re: [Axiom-developer] Axisp news |
Date: | Wed, 27 Jun 2007 01:11:02 +0200 |
User-agent: | Thunderbird 2.0.0.4 (X11/20070604) |
Im not going to try and defend the idea, as I feel I can work with simpler notions. But 1 and + would be considered value identifiers.
You might be right, but what I will certainly do in a near future is an implementation of a domain whose elements are combinatorial species. That domain will be a semiring, so I will use + and 1 to denote the "elements" Plus
(http://www.risc.uni-linz.ac.at/people/hemmecke/AldorCombinat/combinatsu23.html#x37-550008.10)and EmptySetSpecies (http://www.risc.uni-linz.ac.at/people/hemmecke/AldorCombinat/combinatsu17.html#x31-380008.4.1). As you see these identifiers actually denote not only domains but functions that return domains. Would you like me not to use 1 just because my elements would be domains?
Having the types as first class objects has the consequence that type can appear in places where you expect an "element".
However, I need to explore the use tuples exclusively to lift types otherwise hidden by sope into an enclosing context. I suspected that type patterns would be generally useful but I like the simplicity of Martins approach and will try to work with that.
Martin was just demonstrating ordinary use of a dependent type. Ralf
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |