> First of all, I wouldn't ever have typed "List Type", because what
> exactly would that mean? As I understand "Type", it is a category, not a
> domain. So in a sense you could call List(BasicType) and you should get
> the same result as for List(Type).
I'm a little confused: why do you say List(BasicType) is OK? BasicType
is a category, too. Type is a category, but Type is the domain of types:
(1) -> INT
(1) Integer
Type:
Type
(2) -> [INT,STRING]
LISP output:
(UNPRINTABLE UNPRINTABLE)
Type:
List(Type)
List Type is meaningful, while List BasicType is meaningless,
because BasicType is a category but not a domain.
Since we are on this topic, I have something to say.
I'm not a expert, but I noticed:
1. Category is not a thing in FriCAS:
(3) -> Category
(3) Category
Type:
Variable(Category)
It is a thing in OpenAxiom, IIRC.
2. We have Type's type is Category:
(5) -> Type
(5) Type
Type:
Category
IIRC, in OpenAxiom, Type's type is Type.
But I read from somewhere: in a dependant type system,
having all types' type is Type will cause contradiction.
I consider 'higherCategory has lowerCategory' useful:
(9) -> Field has Ring
(9) true
Type:
Boolean
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/fricas-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
