On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 8:51 AM, Ralf Hemmecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Dear Gaby, > > Do you already have a plan how to tackle the Monoid problem?
Yes, I have a plan. I need a preliminary insfrastrucrure -- quantified type variables -- for which an experimental implementation seems to work. I need some time to flesh it out. > Could you > already give some hints how that should roughly look like? My idea it is to focus more on algorithms, than on type. Have a notation for saying that an algorithm has some properties -- this is very different from how people tend to think of domains/categories, e.g. they focus on objects instead of algorithms. > I guess that will be the place where you will differ from Aldor, right? I know that some people are pushing hard for just about everything to look exactly like Aldor. Aldor is alive, very well supported, and people who want just Aldor knows where to find it. Furthermore, there are plans for OpenAxiom to call Aldor libraries (and vice versa). So the fact that OpenAxiom does not look like exactly Aldor should be less of a problem. Other people think that Aldor is an invitation to explore a territory that has so far been under-explored, and people willing to make that journey need not line up strictly behind Aldor. They can take other trails, and make it to the rendez-vous at the Dependent Plazza. -- Gaby ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference Register now and save $200. Hurry, offer ends at 11:59 p.m., Monday, April 7! Use priority code J8TLD2. http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone _______________________________________________ open-axiom-devel mailing list open-axiom-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/open-axiom-devel
