On 05/25/2014 05:17 PM, Waldek Hebisch wrote: >> I had probably introduced >> >> FiniteHomogeneousAggregate(X...): Category == >> Join(HomogeneousAggregate(X), finiteAggregate, ...) with >> >> and put the signatures that appear above in an if condition into >> this more specialized category FiniteHomogeneousAggregate without >> condition. > > Well, HomogeneousAggregate has 46 category descendants. Your > approach would force splitting some of those categories into finite > and non-finite variants.
Maybe you mis-understood. It's not finite and non-finite, but rather just putting everything from the finite if-branch into an additional category, i.e., it would rather be general (i.e. finite or non-finite) vs. finite. > Consequently we would get a bunch of irrelevant distintions during > type checking. IMHO current way is _much_ better. I'm not arguing now much against the current implementation. I just noted it and gave my 2 cents. Thinking about refactoring the category hierarchy is currently not yet my business. I need first the API in HTML and some way to build a .dot file so that GraphViz can make the category hierarchy graphically visible. Ralf -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FriCAS - computer algebra system" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/fricas-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
