Re: [open-axiom-devel] rep/per again

2009-04-02 Thread Ralf Hemmecke
> | Note: This code is currently the same in both FriCAS and OpenAxiom. > > OpenAxiom issues this warning: > >Warnings: > [1] OpenAxiom suggests removing assignment to Rep Very nice. > | Since BinarySearchTree is a particular class of BinaryTree for > | consistency in BinarySearchTr

Re: [open-axiom-devel] rep/per again

2009-04-02 Thread Gabriel Dos Reis
Bill Page writes: | On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | > Bill Page writes: | > | > | Since BinarySearchTree is a particular class of BinaryTree for | > | consistency in BinarySearchTree I would expect to see: | > | | > | ═Implementation == BinaryTree(S) add | > | ═ ═Rep ==

Re: [open-axiom-devel] rep/per again

2009-04-02 Thread Gabriel Dos Reis
Bill Page writes: | > | On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 12:06 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | > | > If you're not proposing to export the Rep, then your proposal is a bit | > | > obscure to me.  Would you mind clarifying why the above does not | > | > amount to exporting the Rep of SomeDomain? | > | > | > B

Re: [open-axiom-devel] rep/per again

2009-04-02 Thread Gabriel Dos Reis
Bill Page writes: | > | On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 12:06 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | > | > If you're not proposing to export the Rep, then your proposal is a bit | > | > obscure to me.  Would you mind clarifying why the above does not | > | > amount to exporting the Rep of SomeDomain? | > | > | > B

Re: [open-axiom-devel] rep/per again

2009-04-02 Thread Bill Page
> | On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 12:06 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > | > If you're not proposing to export the Rep, then your proposal is a bit > | > obscure to me.  Would you mind clarifying why the above does not > | > amount to exporting the Rep of SomeDomain? > | > > Bill Page wrote: > | Because it i

Re: [open-axiom-devel] rep/per again

2009-04-02 Thread Gabriel Dos Reis
Bill Page writes: | On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 12:06 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | > Your earlier suggestion | > | > Bill Page writes: | >  # On the other hand, if there is no OldDomain then it is necessary to | >  # specify the domain that will represent this new domain. We could do it | >  # like

Re: [open-axiom-devel] rep/per again

2009-04-02 Thread Bill Page
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 12:06 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > Your earlier suggestion > > Bill Page writes: >  # On the other hand, if there is no OldDomain then it is necessary to >  # specify the domain that will represent this new domain. We could do it >  # like this: >  # >  #   Foo(...): with >

Re: [open-axiom-devel] rep/per again

2009-04-01 Thread Gabriel Dos Reis
Bill Page writes: | On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 11:27 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | > | > In general, I like the abstract datatype approach taken by both | > OpenAxiom and Aldor.  I would like to see critical use cases and | > sound programming styles or scalable idioms that are eased by | > exposing

Re: [open-axiom-devel] rep/per again

2009-04-01 Thread Gabriel Dos Reis
Bill Page writes: [...] | Notice that the "add" keyword introduces a domain from which some code | and it's associated **representation** while be inherited, so really | there is no need to specify Rep in the following case: | | Foo(...): with | ... | == OldDomain add | ... re