On 11/15/2008 11:09 AM, Martin Rubey wrote: > Ralf Hemmecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>> But I hesitate to write >>> UnivariatePolynomial(var, R) == with Join(CoercibleTo SUP R, >>> CoercibleTo Polynomial R, >>> CoercibleTo DMP([var], R), >>> CoercibleTo MPOLY([var], R) ...) >>> This doesn't look right. >> Doesn't seem to look right. But how else would you want to export >> >> coerce: % -> X >> >> for any of the replacements for X from above? They must statically be given >> at >> compile time or (if "extend" where available) could be added later (but also >> at >> compile time). > > Yes, *exactly* this was my question. And since I think it's a language > problem, I also sent it to aldor-l.
What about putting toHere: (X: UPOLYC) -> X -> % into the category of UPOLYC and then toHere(X: UPOLYC)(x: X): % == coerce(x)$UPOLYCoerce(X, %) as default implementation? It's not exactly like a simple coerce, but you get rid of explicitly stating all the CoercibleTo X exports. Ralf --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FriCAS - computer algebra system" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/fricas-devel?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
