Dear Saul,
Your questions have definite answers in category theory and
since Aldor is *almost* doing category theory, it's tempting to think
that the categorical answers to your questions are really what should
naturally fit into the language. I wrote up something trying this out
for the 2001 workshop
http://atlas.bu.edu/~youssef/papers/math/aldor/aldor.pdf
I still think that this is a good way to look for flaws in the
language - implement category theory and see what goes wrong.
I quite like what you wrote. But I somehow fear that the compiler does
not accept your code. Could you provide the compilable sources of this
paper?
Furthermore, you do quite a lot of high-level constructions. To me it
seems that they are OK to do category theory, but have you any comment
how these constructions could be used to reduce the amount of
programming work, i.e. code reuse?
Ralf
PS:
Mistakes...
Page 5:
Id(Obj:Category):Category == with
id: (A:Obj) -> (A->A)
default
id(A: Obj):(A->A) == (a:A):A +-> a --rhx: I changed this line.
Page 10:
homList(A:Categorify P,B:Categorify P):SingleInteger == add
should probably read
homList(A:Categorify P,B:Categorify P):List(A->B) ==
_______________________________________________
Axiom-math mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-math
