Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | I did quite a bit of work with Aldor now (within the species project > | together with Ralf), and I'm quite convinced of the features of this > | language. In particular, the semantics of Aldor feel very "sound" to me, > | i.e., Aldor usually does what I expect it to do and allows what I would > | expect it to allow. > > except when it does not, then you get depressed :-) But so far not because of Aldor, only because of Axiom's inability to handle Aldor code. > I'm not saying we should not having anything that is in Aldor. I'm saying, > we should define the goal beyond being a clone of Aldor. Cloning Aldor is > not that much interesting. People who wants Aldor know where to get it. The > features should be cloned only when they support the goals very well and > beyond. That's true. > | Gaby pointed out that "==" has different semantics in Aldor and Axiom, but I > | have the feeling that this difference is not so severe: in fact, I don't > know > > yes, those are "little details" that are easy to fix in principle, but > might consume lot of resource to get right. Ahem, what I am saying is that if we want constants in future SPAD, we will use the symbol "==" to introduce them. There are no constants in SPAD currently. If we want to have types being first class, we will very likely need constants. > From my perspective, I would like to support recursive types (get rid > of )abbrev), dependent types, algebraic types. What are "algebraic types"? Martin _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
