Come to think of it, shouldn't "machine" or implementation-dependent *equality* be handled the same way? It has always seemed rather confusing to me that '=' is used in Axiom for this. (Both FriCAS and OpenAxiom still do this.) Although there is the notion of "canonical" which implies something about the relationship between equality in a domain versus equality in the representation domain (Rep). Of course using < for an implementation-dependent ordering was even more conusing. But all domains in Axiom ultimately share the same underlying representation. In a sense reflection is just about making this deeper level representation visible.
Regards, Bill Page. On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Bill Page <[email protected]> wrote: > Gaby, > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 2:41 PM, you wrote: >>... >> This is just binary relation. It is an obscure binary relation, much >> of which not related to the actual mathematics that OpenAxiom >> wants to deal with. That is part of the reasons why it is not glorified >> into a category of its own. >> ... > > Instead of being exported by a category perhaps 'before?' (or > equivalent) should be part of a "machine-oriented" or > reflection-oriented package? So then it is not part of the normal > "namespace" of any domain and the programmer would have to > specifically import the domain reflection package in order to use it. > > Regards, > Bill Page. > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
