> If all fields have SetCategory, then record should have SetCategory > too. Currently Spad cheats and unconditionally asserts SetCategory. > If Aldor unconditionally considers records to _not_ have > SetCategory, then this looks like serious limitation of Aldor.
The SPAD compiler cheats. But even if it doesn't, your rule looks like "the spad compiler knows SetCategory" and so SetCategory would be more or less a type belonging to the Spad Language and not to the library. Would you agree that record should also export BasicType if all its fields have BasicType? Or Monoid if all its fields have Monoid? Where do you draw the line? What if I produce another library where my "SetCategory" type is called "Setcategory" or simply "Set"? Some properties can be lifted, but some not. You are right that Aldor does not allow to express such a lifting statement in terms of the language, but still I'd prefer rather extend the language to express such lifting (even if the number of fields of Record is arbitrary) rather than including library knowledge into the compiler. Just my 2 cents. Ralf PS: I'll try to produce a patch to change Set to List in lodof2.spad. -- 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.
