[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with" (was curious algebra failure)
From: |
Gabriel Dos Reis |
Subject: |
RE: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with" (was curious algebra failure) |
Date: |
Sun, 12 Aug 2007 18:13:16 -0500 (CDT) |
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, Weiss, Juergen wrote:
| I found the old document about type equivalence in Scratchpad. It's:
| A New Algebra System, May, 29 th 1984, James H Davenport. I have only
| found a paper version. Maybe someone has an online version.
|
| It states that:
| 1. Two named types are only equivalent if the names are the same.
| 2. Anonymous types are equivalent when stucturally equivalent
| 3. An anonymous type is never equivalent to a named type.
|
| So following 1.
|
| t1 == List Term
| t2 == List Term
| x : t1
| y : t2
| y := x
|
| is not supposed to work,
|
| but following 2.
|
| x : List Term
| y : List Term
| y := x
|
| is ok,
|
| and following 3.
|
| t == List Term
| x : List Term
| y : t
| y := x
|
| is not supposed to work as well
|
| All examples are taken from the paper.
|
| I am not sure how much of this design is preserved in the current
| system. But without having had an intense look at the examples,
| I got the impression, that they follow the rules above.
Many thanks for digging up the archive.
I understand the above is about "type equivalence"; how about matching?
That is, which way do you think the checking of the code in Monad should
go according to that paper?
-- Gaby
- Re: [Axiom-developer] A curious algebra failure, (continued)
- Re: [Axiom-developer] A curious algebra failure, Gabriel Dos Reis, 2007/08/12
- Re: [Axiom-developer] A curious algebra failure, Gabriel Dos Reis, 2007/08/12
- Re: [Axiom-developer] A curious algebra failure, Bill Page, 2007/08/12
- Re: [Axiom-developer] A curious algebra failure, Gabriel Dos Reis, 2007/08/12
- Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with" (was curious algebra failure), William Sit, 2007/08/12
- Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with" (was curious algebra failure), Bill Page, 2007/08/12
- Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with" (was curious algebra failure), Gabriel Dos Reis, 2007/08/12
- Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with" (was curious algebra failure), Bill Page, 2007/08/12
- Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with" (was curious algebra failure), Gabriel Dos Reis, 2007/08/12
- RE: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with" (was curious algebra failure), Weiss, Juergen, 2007/08/12
- RE: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with" (was curious algebra failure),
Gabriel Dos Reis <=
- Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with" (was curious algebra failure), William Sit, 2007/08/12
- Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with" (was curious algebra failure), Bill Page, 2007/08/12
- Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with" (was curious algebra failure), Gabriel Dos Reis, 2007/08/12
- Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with" (was curious algebra failure), Bill Page, 2007/08/12
- Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with" (was curious algebra failure), Gabriel Dos Reis, 2007/08/12
- Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with" (was curious algebra failure), Bill Page, 2007/08/12
- Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with" (was curious algebra failure), Gabriel Dos Reis, 2007/08/12
- Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with" (was curious algebra failure), William Sit, 2007/08/12
- Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with" (was curious algebra failure), Gabriel Dos Reis, 2007/08/12
- Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with" (was curious algebra failure), Bill Page, 2007/08/13