[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 19:28:34 -0500 (CDT) |
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007, Bill Page wrote:
| On 8/12/07, William Sit <address@hidden> wrote:
| > The question is not so much whether the rules are followed as to *when* a
| > type (domain and category, perhaps even package) becomes named. Note
| > that the examples given in Davenport are for domains, not categories. Are
| > there differences in handling between named domains and named categories?
| > unnamed domains and unnamed categories?
|
| Of course in principle both domains and categories are supposed to be
| treated equally as 'types' - at least in Aldor this is true.
|
| >
| > (6) -> x:List Integer:=[1,2,3]
| >
| > (6) [1,2,3]
| > --- assume that in (6), List Integer is unnamed.
| > Type: List Integer
| > ...
| > There is also the complication that the above is done via the interpreter.
| >
|
| I do not think it is possible to test this in the Axiom interpreter
| because it's support of types as first class values is highly
| deficient. But I took a try at this using Spad. See Juergen's examples
| here:
|
| http://wiki.axiom-developer.org/SandBoxCategories
|
| I think this demonstrate that Davenport's rules are implemented in Spad.
So, how do you think the original example (Monad using expt$RepeatedSquare(%))
should behave according to those rules?
-- 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] "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, 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 <=
- 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
- Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with" (was curious algebra failure), Gabriel Dos Reis, 2007/08/13
- Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with" (was curious algebra failure), Bill Page, 2007/08/13
- Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with" (was curious algebra failure), William Sit, 2007/08/13