On 11/23/2007 06:04 PM, Bill Page wrote:
> Thanks, Ralf. I like your version better than mine. It makes more
> sense than the apparently redundant syntactic change I proposed ...
> although I wonder why we should define a local function rather than
> just write it inline. Would you agree however that that fact that
> Saul's original variant does not compile should be considered a
> regression bug in the Aldor compiler?
Yes and no.
Suppose you want to declare
---BEGIN aaa.as
#include "aldor"
define Cat: Category == with {
foo: String -> Integer;
foo: (s: String) -> Integer;
}
---END aaa.as
The types of both foos are different. The question now is, would you
like Cat to export 2 or only 1 function?
Now there is a very special case...
Would you like X and Y
X: Record(x: A);
Y: Record(y: A);
be of the same type?
So I cannot really say yes or no to your question and would rather be
happy to hear more information from the people who changed the compiler
behaviour.
What is the background? And (more importantly) what is the semantics of
"Cat" according to the language definition. I cannot say whether it
exports one or two functions.
Ralf
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
open-axiom-devel mailing list
open-axiom-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/open-axiom-devel
