Ralf Hemmecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> What about putting
>
> toHere: (X: UPOLYC) -> X -> %
>
> into the category of UPOLYC and then
>
> toHere(X: UPOLYC)(x: X): % == coerce(x)$UPOLYCoerce(X, %)
>
> as default implementation?
just to make the analogy with CoercibleTo:
coercibleTo: (X: UPOLYC) -> % -> X
add
coercibleTo(X: UPOLYC)(x: %): X == coerce(x)$UPOLYCoerce(%, X)
> It's not exactly like a simple coerce, but you get rid of explicitly stating
> all the CoercibleTo X exports.
But it's a very nice idea, maybe we can extend it somehow...
A has with coercibleTo(SparseUnivariatePolynomial R):
% -> SparseUnivariatePolynomial R
or even
A has with coercibleTo(SparseUnivariatePolynomial R)
?
However, in truth I think one needs:
> Another question is using "forall" types
> (your semantics of CoercibleToCat is essentially forall
> type): I think that such types would be a nice addition,
> but first we should work out semantics to make sure
> that we do not fall into some trap (like conflict
> with overloading).
Martin
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
