To follow-up on what Gordon mentioned, our aim is to thoroughly examine the benefits one gets when replacing "inductive datatypes" as the foundation for basic type constructors in functional languages with Species instead.
The point being that Set and Cycle, as atomic species qua type constructors, are not all that different from X. And while you already have + and * over inductive types, other species operations are just as valid, and again do not really 'complicate' things too much. All sorts of operations for generic/polytypic programming keep working just as before. Some of this has been done before (read: reinvented) under the name of 'Containers' in the functional programming community. But their Containers are really defined in a dual form of species, which I don't happen to like as much, even though many similar results hold. In other words, we are not so much interested as implementing Species as with replacing inductive datatypes (ie polynomial Functors and their least-first-points) with Species as the basic language. One question: do you plan to implement operations akin to Maple's combstruct, in particular random generation? That would be extremely helpful for automated testing of program over combinatorial structures. Jacques PS: thanks for the subversion address, that will be very handy. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Aldor-combinat-devel mailing list Aldor-combinat-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/aldor-combinat-devel
