On 8/13/07, Alasdair McAndrew wrote:
On 8/13/07, Bill Page wrote:
> ...
> The current installer program for Axiom on Windows installs an older
> version of Axiom in which the
> > version of Axiom in which the
> >
> > )set function compile on
> >
> > bug was not yet fixed (refer to IssueTracker on
Thanks, that worked fine!
Now - I don't want to have to go through the arduous business of downloading
masses of stuff before I can compile Axiom on Windows (and neither do my
students). All I want is one simple installation file: download, install
and that's it. Do you know if the current Windo
On 8/13/07, Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
>
> You have added the Aldor version of the test code to
>
> > | http://wiki.axiom-developer.org/AnonymousCategories
>
> For test3()
>
> -- QQ is a category-valued constant
> define QQ:Category == with { +:(Integer,Integer)->Integer }
> ttest3():Boole
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
| > The Spad compiler tries to treat category constructors, domain
| > constructors, package constructors, and function calls as uniformly as
| > possible. What I mean by that is that it applies the principle:
| >
| >When calling a function, collect
Hello,
There are many easy examples of this when you use the Axiom interpreter.
Perhaps the following is related:
Trying to implement free products of monoids
FreeProductMonoid(M1:Monoid,M2:Monoid)
(see attachment, not very elegant, but I don't know how to avoid "mixed
lists" otherwise). I am
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
| > > > I'm saying that the parameter S of the default package
| > > > Monad& -- generated for the default implementation of the
| > > > category Monad -- is of the named category Monad.
|
| Sorry, I am too lazy to go back where all began. But let me quot
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
| > 1. When a function is called, the compiler/interpreter determines
| > whether the arguments used to call the function are coercible
| > to the type of the formal parameters of the function, when it
| > was declared.
| >
|
1. When a function is called, the compiler/interpreter determines
whether the arguments used to call the function are coercible
to the type of the formal parameters of the function, when it
was declared.
What that means concretely is that when we declare a func
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, Bill Page wrote:
| On 13 Aug 2007 00:39:45 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > ...
| >2. When one defines a category with default implementation, like
| >Monad, the compiler extracts the "purely categorial" part of
| >Monad, e.g. the exports; then it implic
William Sit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| I think I understand the objection raised by Gaby. In matching Monad to
| SetCategory with ..., Axiom is applying a forgetful functor that, given a
| monad, forgets all of its operations except those featured in SetCategory with
| In this sense, app
On 13 Aug 2007 00:39:45 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> ...
>2. When one defines a category with default implementation, like
>Monad, the compiler extracts the "purely categorial" part of
>Monad, e.g. the exports; then it implicitly creates a package
>Monad& with an im
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, Bill Page wrote:
| Is it possible to trace how coerce is called in an unmodified Spad
| compiler that compiles Monad without an error message?
Bill, sorry, I misread this part of your message.
I'm starting a new build without the correction applied
to the compiler.
-- Gaby
"Bill Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Gaby,
|
| On 8/12/07, you wrote:
| > On Sun, 12 Aug 2007, William Sit wrote:
| >
| > | Isn't the problem whether 'Monad has SetCategory with
| > | "*":(%,%)->%' ? My answer would be yes. This should not be
| > | related to equivalence of categories or do
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, Bill Page wrote:
| On 8/13/07, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > ...
| > When compiling the default definition of ** for Monad, the compiler
| > notices that expt comes from RepeatedSquare(S), where S is the
| > parameter of type Monad to Monad&.
|
| This use of S is confusing to m
On 8/13/07, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, Bill Page wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> | > > Similarly, an expression of type PositiveInteger is coercible to
> | > > Integer bcause PositiveInteger is a subdomain of Integer. Similarly,
> | > > a domain expression of type C1 is coercible to C2 if
On 8/13/07, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> ...
> When compiling the default definition of ** for Monad, the compiler
> notices that expt comes from RepeatedSquare(S), where S is the
> parameter of type Monad to Monad&.
This use of S is confusing to me. The spad code says:
import RepeatedSquaring(%)
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, Bill Page wrote:
[...]
| > > Similarly, an expression of type PositiveInteger is coercible to
| > > Integer bcause PositiveInteger is a subdomain of Integer. Similarly,
| > > a domain expression of type C1 is coercible to C2 if C2 appears
| > > in the list of named categorie
On 08/13/2007 05:18 PM, William Sit wrote:
Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
Let's compile and run the program below.
woodpecker:~/scratch>aldor -laldor -grun aaa.as
has with {foo: ()->()} = T
has with {bar: ()->()} = T
has with {rhx: ()->()} = T
has with {foo: ()->()} = T
has with {bar: ()->()} = T
has wi
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, William Sit wrote:
|
|
| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
|
| > On Sun, 12 Aug 2007, William Sit wrote:
| >
| > | Isn't the problem whether 'Monad has SetCategory with "*":(%,%)->%' ?
| >
| > If the question is formulated in terms of "has", then I think the answer
| > is unambiguous
On 8/13/07, Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
> > The Spad compiler tries to treat category constructors, domain
> > constructors, package constructors, and function calls as uniformly as
> > possible. What I mean by that is that it applies the principle:
> >
> >When calling a function, collect candidates,
I don't think that the compiler automatically applies the
coerce functions. Haven't checked to substantiate that
claim though.
Regards
Juergen Weiss
Juergen Weiss | Universitaet Mainz, Zentrum fuer Datenverarbeitung,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]| 55099 Mainz, Tel: +49(6131)39-26361, FAX:
+49(6131)39-26
Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
> Let's compile and run the program below.
>
> woodpecker:~/scratch>aldor -laldor -grun aaa.as
> has with {foo: ()->()} = T
> has with {bar: ()->()} = T
> has with {rhx: ()->()} = T
> has with {foo: ()->()} = T
> has with {bar: ()->()} = T
> has with {rhx: ()->()} = T
> MDom h
The Spad compiler tries to treat category constructors, domain
constructors, package constructors, and function calls as uniformly as
possible. What I mean by that is that it applies the principle:
When calling a function, collect candidates, filter them by
applying the criteria that the a
Ralf Hemmecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > | Isn't the problem whether 'Monad has SetCategory with "*":(%,%)->%' ?
|
| > If the question is formulated in terms of "has", then I think the answer
| > is unambiguously "yes".
|
| Gaby, if you are going to implement "yes", then we should keep in m
On 08/11/2007 08:55 PM, Franz Lehner wrote:
Now, in Axiom we should have a problem with saying that S is an
additive group.
That's true. All axioms are satisfied, except uniqueness of inverses and
the neutral element. What should it be? A FuzzyAbelianGroup?
Well, the problem is that we don't
On 8/13/07, Alasdair McAndrew wrote:
>
> I'm using Axiom with some cryptography students; at this very early stage we
> are having fun with very simple ciphers (Vigenere, Hill, etc), so we need to
> transfer from a string to a list of integers.
>
> Here is how to reproduce the bug: on windows Axio
In Spad there is also the subdomain construction that is used to
define PositiveInteger and NonNegativeInteger from Integer. Subdomain
automatically provides "coercible to" the parent domain. This is
something that Spad has that was never implemented in Aldor.
Bill, that should be on our list fo
| Isn't the problem whether 'Monad has SetCategory with "*":(%,%)->%' ?
If the question is formulated in terms of "has", then I think the answer
is unambiguously "yes".
Gaby, if you are going to implement "yes", then we should keep in mind
that the Aldor compiler currently does not allow cat
I'm saying that the parameter S of the default package
Monad& -- generated for the default implementation of the
category Monad -- is of the named category Monad.
Sorry, I am too lazy to go back where all began. But let me quote that
piece of code here.
Monad(): Category == SetCategory with
"Alasdair McAndrew" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm using Axiom with some cryptography students; at this very early stage we
> are having fun with very simple ciphers (Vigenere, Hill, etc), so we need to
> transfer from a string to a list of integers.
>
> Here is how to reproduce the bug: on wi
Hi,
I'm using Axiom with some cryptography students; at this very early stage we
are having fun with very simple ciphers (Vigenere, Hill, etc), so we need to
transfer from a string to a list of integers.
Here is how to reproduce the bug: on windows Axiom, enter the following tiny
function:
str2l
---BEGIN aaa.as
#include "aldor"
#include "aldorio"
main(): () == {
import from Integer;
T1 == List Integer;
T2 == List Integer;
t1: T1 := [1];
t2: T2 := t1;
stdout << "t1 = " << t1 << newline;
stdout << "t2 = " << t2 << newline;
#if Doesnt
Dear Bill,
You have added the Aldor version of the test code to
| http://wiki.axiom-developer.org/AnonymousCategories
For test3()
-- QQ is a category-valued constant
define QQ:Category == with { +:(Integer,Integer)->Integer }
ttest3():Boolean ==
Integer has QQ
you say: --
I think I understand the objection raised by Gaby. In matching Monad to
SetCategory with ..., Axiom is applying a forgetful functor that, given a
monad, forgets all of its operations except those featured in SetCategory with
In this sense, applying a forgetful functor is a form of automatic
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Aug 2007, William Sit wrote:
>
> | Isn't the problem whether 'Monad has SetCategory with "*":(%,%)->%' ?
>
> If the question is formulated in terms of "has", then I think the answer
> is unambiguously "yes".
>
> But, is that the way the compiler is intended o
35 matches
Mail list logo
