Rep and Per are good for many things, but it might be worth adding a
shorthand for 'my representation is just a record'. Don't think of Rep
as an instance variable - it's a mapping between your type and an
underlying one. That said, a default representation of Rep + Record
might be an interesting idea.
Peter, perhaps you know ...
The only thing that makes "Rep", "rep", and "per" special is:
macro {
rep x == ((x)@%) pretend Rep;
per r == ((r)@Rep) pretend %;
}
from include/aldor.as.
Now let us assume that everywhere in the libaldor sources we would replace
Rep <--- Foo
rep <--- bar
per <--- rab
I guess the compiler would still accept the code and even produces an
identical library (up to name changes and hash codes etc).
Or does the compiler know about a special treatment of "Rep" (in
contrast to "Foo")?
Going a bit further... is % known to the compiler? Or could I also
replace that (above and in everywhere.as file) by something else like
"Bar", for example?
I'm really curious.
Thanks in advance
Ralf
_______________________________________________
Axiom-developer mailing list
Axiom-developer@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
