On Monday 27 Jun 2011 10:54:43 Ralf Hemmecke wrote: > Since your typed and untyped domain are *very* similar, you should > perhaps factor out common functionality. I'll take a look and probably > suggest a patch later this week. Actually, instead of switching the > representation of Untyped to String, I'd rather unify Typed and Untyped > as much as possible.
Ralf, Yes, I would be interested to see your ideas, These domains are just outlines at the moment, I have lots of issues with the best way to develop type modelling. For instance: * How do we handle (and should we handle) subtypes and the various flavors of polymorphism? I was thinking of an additional type domain within this category whose representation is a list of sub-types, which in turn may have sub-sub-types. In other words a tree structure. Most of the structures in this computation framework are already tree structures so this fits the pattern. * How do we handle (and should we handle) compounded types such as 'List over String'? * It would be interesting to have a type domain in this category where the types were FriCAS types. This would be an exception, usualy I would prefer an abstract type model, but it may be possible to do interesing things by mapping FriCAS to an abstract type model. * Could these type models be used outside of the computation framework? For instance a set whose elements may be assigned different types. I am trying to develop an abstract model of general mathematical structures here, not a sub-language within FriCAS, so I don't want to over specify this. However I think it would be good to specify a model which is as general as possible and can be expanded to model these things. 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.
