Le sam. 19 oct. 2024 à 18:32, 'Ralf Hemmecke' via FriCAS - computer algebra system <fricas-devel@googlegroups.com> a écrit :
> > Admittedly, it is sometimes nice that the compiler treats equally. But I > wouldn't mind to insert per's and rep's explicitly just to be clear > whether the object at hand is to be seen as something of type % or of > type Rep. >From my point of view Rep is completely private, encapsulated, and it is up to the developer of the domain to use or not operations from the internal representation, here, List(Integer). And otherwise throw an error if it is not defined in the domain being developed and not explicitly called using the Rep domain. > Note that both types usually can come with quite different > exports. Completely. > > I must say that after all these years I have not seen a documented rule > of how and when an element is auto-coerced (or rather "pretend"ed to Rep > or %. Similarly, I am missing the rul for X and Union(X,"failed"). > > Anyway, to me it looks like a compiler error. I think so too. - Greg -- 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 fricas-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fricas-devel/CAHnU2dbii4k0AKKPtiOVR8iQ-JmmSLYmfDEdzXtR_nFFG5y4-g%40mail.gmail.com.
