On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 6:37 PM, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
> Bill Page wrote:
>> I hope you do not mind continuation of this discussion.
>
> I should be really doing something else, but could not
> resist so I wrote quick answer.
>
Thanks. :-) i do appreciate that this discussion might seem too
"philos
Bill Page wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
> >
> > Bill Page wrote:
> >> ...
> >> Although it is currently a stand alone domain, 'Void' could be easily
> >> made to satisfy 'SetCategory' by providing a simple '=' operation.
> >> Since by definition 'Void' has only a
On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
>
> Bill Page wrote:
>> ...
>> Although it is currently a stand alone domain, 'Void' could be easily
>> made to satisfy 'SetCategory' by providing a simple '=' operation.
>> Since by definition 'Void' has only a single "canonical" value we can
>
Bill Page wrote:
>
> We seldom seem to make much progress with foundational issues in Axiom
> (where I write Axiom in this email, it should be understood that I am
> also referring to FriCAS and OpenAxiom) but I thought I would like to
> bring up a subject that has bother me a little and ask for c
Bill Page writes:
[...]
| 'None' on the other hand is called a "domain without any values" but
| it is typically used in situations where one apparently needs to
| temporarily avoid (duck?) the type checking, e.g. in the domain 'Any',
| but also in several other places in Axiom:
None is known t
We seldom seem to make much progress with foundational issues in Axiom
(where I write Axiom in this email, it should be understood that I am
also referring to FriCAS and OpenAxiom) but I thought I would like to
bring up a subject that has bother me a little and ask for comments.
'None' and 'Void'
