On 24 Aug 2006 14:38:19 +0200
Martin Rubey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ralf Hemmecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> f(m: INT, n: INT): PF n == m::PF(n)
that's OK.
> [f(100, n) for n in primes(1,100)]
that's stupid.
Why? I would think it is an element (not a list) in a
cartesian product of #primes(1,100) prime fields.
Ask yourself, what type that list will have and you
realise that Aldor will
reject that its compilation.
Excuse me, Gaby. Sorry about being so stupid.
It's a perfectly good mathematical object in a cartesian
product.
> [a::P for P in L]
That is as problematic as the first list.
"problematic" is an understatement. Sorry.
Ditto. The only problem I see that can't be handled is if
you make it into a function of k:
[f(100, n) for n in primes(1,k)]
To have true dependent types means the compiler should be
able to handle
[f(100, n) for n in primes(1,100)]
because the list primes(1,100) is computable at compile
time and hence the prime fields can be constructed and
their cartesian product too. prime(1,k) is a totally
different ball game, but even that should be doable with
generated code to instantiate the prime fields when k is
given a value at run time.
William
_______________________________________________
Axiom-developer mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
