About abstracting the signature 'map : (S->S,%)->%'
into a category, there are 2 problems so far:
> - Functor is quite loaded name and may lead to confusion.
> Something like 'MapCategory2' seem to fit better existing
> naming scheme.
> - What documentatin do you propose for the 'map' function?
> Current scheme with several signatures has a separate
> documentation slot per signature. Common signature would
> be quite abstract, so hard to specify.
First, the name. Yes, the name "Functor" may lead to
confusion, for example, to be mixed with the category
theory "Functor". (Well, "Category" has similar problem.)
OpenAxiom uses "Functorial", which is similar to "Functor"?
I think we can also consider the name "MapCategory".
Second, the documentation. Yes, it's impossible to give a
precise documentation for "map", the doc will depend on the
domain that implements "map". Because this category just
specifies the signature and a few axioms that "map"
should obey, the actually meaning of "map" can be very
different. (This is more obvious for Monad.)
So I suggest the following change:
map:(S->S,%)->%
++ map docstring
to
MapCategory(S)
++ map docstring
However such changes will not update the docstring
showed in HyperDoc.
OpenAxiom just removes those documentation, which is
a loss of information. (See the OpenAxiom changes on
2013-05-20, or commit 1316b335).
--
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.
