Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
> > 3) Re-organize expression domains to allow finite fields, but
> > still warranty that operations can be done.
> >
> > If we want faithfully follow Axiom paradigm than only 2) or 3) would
> > be acceptable. 3) would be ideal, but I am affraid that the best
> > we can get in this direction would be some combination of
> > 2) and 3). I must say that I consider 2) as very ugly. So 1)
> > looks like best alternative...
>
> ;-) I agree, that 3) will not happen in the next two weeks. But again,
> why do we have a type system, if we choose to ignore it? So final goal
> should be 3).
>
> Wasn't there some horizon in 50 years? ;-)
>
Let me repeat: having partial functions and raising errors at
runtime when argument is not in the domain is consistent with
type system. It seems that you want a category, say
'NoRuntimeErrorPossible' meaning that no opeation will raise
errors and you want that every (or most) domains have this
category.
Again, allowing partial functions means that we can use type
system in situations that otherwise would be hard to handle
in typed way.
BTW: Java tries to "control" exceptions via type system, and
this is widely regarded as a failure. So good solution to
problem of partial functions would be welcome, but I do
not expect one quickly (in fact, as I wrote in response to
Martion, the problem is unsolvable one, so the best we can
hope is a partial solution).
--
Waldek Hebisch
[email protected]
--
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.
