Waldek Hebisch <[email protected]> writes:
| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| >
| > Waldek Hebisch <[email protected]> writes:
| >
| > | Note2: I have no idea if/how the construct:
| > |
| > | false == per constantKernel FALSE
| > | true == per constantKernel TRUE
| > |
| > | works in OpenAxiom.
| >
| > Yes, it does.
|
| In FriCAS it would not typecheck. constantKernel is of type %,
| while '%false is of type Symbol.
In OpenAxiom, we have
(1) -> )di op constantKernel
There is one exposed function called constantKernel :
[1] D2 -> Kernel D3 from KernelFunctions2(D2,D3)
if D2 has SETCAT and D3 has SETCAT
In the context where it is used, constantKernel is taken from
`KernelFunctions2(Identifier,%)' because of the import line
import KernelFunctions2(Identifier,%)
Consequently, the expression `constantKernel FALSE' has type `Kernel %'
which is the second branch of the representation domain. Finally the
operator `per' blesses that object of type 'Kernel %' into `%'.
It would have worked the same if I used Symbol instead of Identifier,
but in OpenAxiom we tend to use Identifier when we do not expect
subscripted names (like obviously the case here.)
Any reason why that chain of events isn't happening in FriCAS?
| Even if OpenAxiom compiler
| performs some magic coercions I wonder if result really
| has correct representation.
There is no magic coercions (except that a simple identifier in
a context where Identifier is expected is of type Identifier; otherwise
it is Symbol.) What are the reasons for your wondering?
-- Gaby
--
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.
