> In OpenAxiom, one can use @ to restrict the set of mappings, e.g.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED](INT,NNI,INT)
>
> selects the * as default-supplied by ABELGRP.
Good to know.
> In fact, I don't see what would be wrong with
> [EMAIL PROTECTED](INT,INT,INT)
> or
> [EMAIL PROTECTED](String,String,String)
Nothing, but your intention with
>>> forall(T: Type) .
>>> Associative(Modemap(T,T,T): op): Category == with nil
somehow was to remove the need to say anything about T. Now in Modemap
you mention it even 3 times.
Well, I agree that is a rather pathological case, but somehow I still
fail to see the big advantage.
I assume you want that
forall(T: Type)
is implicitly assumed by the compiler. Did I understand that correctly?
Is there a similar simple thing for
forall(T: Ring)
...
? Currently, I only see that you intend to remove the need for signature
declarations in a package called "forall". Could you elaborate?
Ralf
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
open-axiom-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/open-axiom-devel
