Ralf Hemmecke <[email protected]> writes:
| Do you also remember that Stephen Watt was thinking about %?
| I think it had to do with defining one domain inside another.
The existance of % is fundamental (solely I would argue) only to designate
the greatest fixed point of a functor.
However, the fact that it is distinguished in signatures comes with its
own set problems:
-- Imagine a domain D (say that satisfies Ring) that has the
following exports
* : (Integer, %) -> % -- [1]
* : (%, %) -> % -- [2]
In almost every place [1] and [2] are considered distinct and one
should not be confused with the other. And modemap selections
will in general select a function based on these generic forms
(e.g. the one with % in them.) However, it is a problem
(e.g. ambiguity) when the domain of computation happens to be
Integer. You can repeat this example with just any signature with
distinguished concrete domain in their exports.
-- In domain definitions, it makes an artificial distinction between
the domain form and % (fornunately OpenAxiom has courtesy
conversions to minimize the ill effects of this artificial
distinction.)
-- 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.
