[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: |
Bill Page |
Subject: |
Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with" (was curious algebra failure) |
Date: |
Sun, 12 Aug 2007 20:26:05 -0400 |
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.
Regards,
Bill Page.
- Re: [Axiom-developer] A curious algebra failure, (continued)
- 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, 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 <=
- 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
- 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