>> if % is List(S) then > > You repeat the definition in category, I think repeat the definition > in domain would be better?
Certainly better to repeat in List domain. Logically, how would the category know about the actual representation of List. Furthermore, there might be other domains that gain from such repetition and thus inlining. So the domain is a more canonical place if the condition would be "% is ..." instead of "% has ...". The question is whether the compiler should not simply put the inherited the implementation of map! from the category into the domain, but rather "inherit" only the source code and compile again directly for the respective domain, i.e., perhaps inlining some parts. I've no clue whether that would be possible or a desireable behaviour of the compiler. 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 https://groups.google.com/group/fricas-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
