> I am affraid that "Integer has Rings" sounds misleading.
> Even "Integer has Ring" does not sound good, actually
> "Integer has RingCategory" sounds much better.
I faintly remember that I've read that the original developers wanted to
keep singular for categories (and domains) and wanted to have Ring
instead of RingCategory. Ring is the "class" of things and the more
specific objects are named Integer, Fraction(Integer), etc. And I
usually read
Integer has Ring
as
Integer has "the property of being a" Ring
that is also not totally in following mathematical usage, but I am
somehow satisfied if I remind myself that a logical formula P can be
considered as a property P and then with
A = { a | P(a) }
the notation
a \in A
and
P(a) (or in SPAD terms "a has P")
are quite the same.
As for the use of FooCategory. I'm somehow undecided. I like that we now
have Ring, Field, etc. to follow the mathematical name. But there are
other things (usually when one programs something new that does not have
a corresponding mathematical concept). In such cases I find FooCategory
quite user-friendly, because one does not first have to look up whether
the identifier denotes a domain or a category.
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.
