On Sat, 19 May 2007, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > On Sat, 19 May 2007, Martin Rubey wrote:
| > | Are you saying:
| > |
| > | if A and B or C then ...
| > |
| > | should be, but currently isn't allowed in the context of conditional
exports?
| > | (I think it is allowed already now.)
| >
| > I'm saying that we seriously consider the above when A, B or C
| > happen to be patterns (`is form') or attribute queries (`has form').
| > Note that from Spad point of view, they are just predicates.
| >
|
| From aggcat.spad.pamphlet:
|
| if Entry has SetCategory and % has finiteAggregate then
| entry?: (Entry,%) -> Boolean
| ++ entry?(x,u) tests if x equals \axiom{u . i} for some index i.
|
| Form aggcat2.spad.pamphlet:
|
| if B has ListAggregate(R) or not(B has shallowlyMutable) then
| -- A is a list-oid, and B is either list-oids or not mutable
| map(f, l) == construct [f s for s in entries l]
|
| So, as Martin wrote simple boolean operators already work. I belive
| that there are restrictions, namely that more complicated expressions
| do not work. I agree that also complicated expressions should be
| allowed, but support (or lack of it) does not cause conceptual or
| practical difficulties: complicated expressions are just syntatic
| sugar for combinations of simple expressions.
I don't see what you guys are trying to make as a point.
)abbrev domain FOO Foo
Foo(T: Type): Public == Private where
Public ==> with
if T has Ring or T is Double then
bar: % -> Boolean
Private ==> add
if T has Ring or T is Double then
bar x == false
I'm out of this discussion.
-- Gaby
_______________________________________________
Axiom-developer mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
