[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with"
From: |
Gabriel Dos Reis |
Subject: |
Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with" |
Date: |
Thu, 16 Aug 2007 08:35:12 -0500 (CDT) |
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007, Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
[...]
| You cannot achieve that uniformity. Take
|
| define Cat: Category == with;
| define Foo(T: Cat): Category == with {};
| DomI: Foo(Integer) == add;
| DomS: Foo(String) == add;
| b1: Boolean == DomI has Foo(Integer);
| b2: Boolean == DomI has Foo(String);
| b3: Boolean == DomS has Foo(Integer);
| b4: Boolean == DomI has Foo(String);
|
| If you treat domain constructors in the same way as basic values (functions)
| then
|
| Foo(Integer) = Foo(String) = with {}
How is the above is a logical consequence?
In no way I have tied argument passing semantics to equality.
| So b1, ..., b4 should all be true, right? But I remember faintly that you
| argued about a functional language with respect to the types and that you
| would like to be able to distinguish
|
| Foo(Integer) from Foo(String)
|
| No?
For sure, I would like to distinguish those two. However, I do not
see how that follows from the semantics of passing arguments in function
calls.
| Where would be the uniformity here?
The uniformity is in terms of prerequsite of instantiation -- same rules for
everybody.
-- Gaby
- Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with" and bug, (continued)
- Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with" and bug, Ralf Hemmecke, 2007/08/13
- [Axiom-developer] Re: "has" and "with" and bug, Gabriel Dos Reis, 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), Gabriel Dos Reis, 2007/08/13
- Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with" (was curious algebra failure), Ralf Hemmecke, 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", Ralf Hemmecke, 2007/08/16
- Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with", Gabriel Dos Reis, 2007/08/16
- Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with", Ralf Hemmecke, 2007/08/16
- Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with",
Gabriel Dos Reis <=
- Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with", Ralf Hemmecke, 2007/08/16
- Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with", Gabriel Dos Reis, 2007/08/16
- Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with", Ralf Hemmecke, 2007/08/16
- Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with", Gabriel Dos Reis, 2007/08/16
- Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with", Ralf Hemmecke, 2007/08/16
- Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with", Gabriel Dos Reis, 2007/08/16
- Message not available
- Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with", Gabriel Dos Reis, 2007/08/16
- Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with" (was curious algebra failure), William Sit, 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