Ok. How do tell Aldor that I do not care about the name I am only
interested in the anonymous body of a given category definition? I
thought I understood this, but I guess not. The discussion of the
'define' keyword in the AUG lead me to believe that that was what was
implied by it's use.
If I
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:
| > 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:
> ...
> 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, 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
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
hey follow the rules above.
Regards
Juergen Weiss
Juergen Weiss | Universitaet Mainz, Zentrum fuer Datenverarbeitung,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]| 55099 Mainz, Tel: +49(6131)39-26361, FAX:
+49(6131)39-26407
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of
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
Gaby,
On 13 Aug 2007 00:28:49 -0500, you wrote:
> "Bill Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> | > > 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. It is
>
"Bill Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| > > 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. It is
| > > that parameter S which is being used to instantiate
| > >
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 domains. We
> | already have seen examples that Integer has
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007, William Sit wrote:
| On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 20:19:47 -0500 (CDT)
| Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| >On Sun, 12 Aug 2007, Bill Page wrote:
| >
| > | On 8/12/07, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > | > On Sun, 12 Aug 2007, Bill Page wrote:
| > | > | ...
| > | > | It should b
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 20:19:47 -0500 (CDT)
Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007, Bill Page wrote:
| On 8/12/07, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > On Sun, 12 Aug 2007, Bill Page wrote:
| > | ...
| > | It should be fine because of rule 2:
| > |
| > | 2. Anonymous types are equi
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007, Bill Page wrote:
| On 8/12/07, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > On Sun, 12 Aug 2007, Bill Page wrote:
| > | ...
| > | It should be fine because of rule 2:
| > |
| > | 2. Anonymous types are equivalent when structurally equivalent
| >
| > The parameter S in RepeatedSquare(S) of the
On 8/12/07, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Aug 2007, Bill Page wrote:
> | ...
> | It should be fine because of rule 2:
> |
> | 2. Anonymous types are equivalent when structurally equivalent
>
> The parameter S in RepeatedSquare(S) of the category
>
>SetCategory with "*": (%,%) -> %
>
> bu
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007, Bill Page wrote:
| On 8/12/07, Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > On Sun, 12 Aug 2007, Bill Page wrote:
| > | ...
| > | http://wiki.axiom-developer.org/SandBoxCategories
| > |
| > | I think this demonstrate that Davenport's rules are implemented in Spad.
| >
| > S
On 8/12/07, Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Aug 2007, Bill Page wrote:
> | ...
> | http://wiki.axiom-developer.org/SandBoxCategories
> |
> | I think this demonstrate that Davenport's rules are implemented in Spad.
>
> So, how do you think the original example (Monad using e
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007, Bill Page wrote:
| On 8/12/07, William Sit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
On 8/12/07, William Sit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 ha
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
On 8/12/07, William Sit wrote:
>
> Ah, of course (SandBox), stupid me!
> Thanks for "upgrading" the page.
>
Don't worry. Editing and correcting it first as a SandBox page and
then renaming it is often the best way.
> Now I wonder if I should remove my wrong conjecture on
> "has" has higher preced
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, Weiss, Juergen wrote:
| I found the old document about type equivalence in Scratchpad. It's:
| A New Algebra System, May, 29 th 1984, James H Davenport. I have only
| found a paper version. Maybe someone has an online version.
|
| It states that:
| 1. Two named types are only
Bill:
Ah, of course (SandBox), stupid me!
Thanks for "upgrading" the page.
Now I wonder if I should remove my wrong conjecture on
"has" has higher precedence. What do you think (as a
general principle, should wrong explanations be removed)?
William
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 18:00:40 -0400
"Bill
l Dos Reis
> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 12:16 AM
> To: Bill Page
> Cc: axiom-developer@nongnu.org
> Subject: Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with" (was curious
> algebra failure)
>
> On Sun, 12 Aug 2007, Bill Page wrote:
>
> | On 8/12/07, Ga
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007, Bill Page wrote:
| On 8/12/07, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > On Sun, 12 Aug 2007, Bill Page wrote:
| >
| > | If you prefer, now that we have this page nearly finished we could
| > | rename it to remove the SandBox prefix, then all subscribers would be
| > | notified of any furth
On 8/12/07, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Aug 2007, Bill Page wrote:
>
> | If you prefer, now that we have this page nearly finished we could
> | rename it to remove the SandBox prefix, then all subscribers would be
> | notified of any further changes.
>
> That would be great!
>
Ok, now ple
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007, Bill Page wrote:
| If you prefer, now that we have this page nearly finished we could
| rename it to remove the SandBox prefix, then all subscribers would be
| notified of any further changes.
That would be great!
-- Gaby
___
Axi
On 8/12/07, William Sit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bill Page and I have a discussion on "has" and "with" on
>
> http://wiki.axiom-developer.org/SandBoxCategories
>
> but the changes/emails seem not to have been sent out yet.
>
William,
I have been receiving the email notices of your changes bec
Bill Page and I have a discussion on "has" and "with" on
http://wiki.axiom-developer.org/SandBoxCategories
but the changes/emails seem not to have been sent out yet.
William
___
Axiom-developer mailing list
Axiom-developer@nongnu.org
http://lists.no
39 matches
Mail list logo
