> I have domain and functions that operate on Syntax objects. I would > like to write > > check > MyList(T: Domain): Inductive Domain == > MyNil > MyCons: (T,%) -> % > > could you clearly explain to me how I get '==' systematically and > reliably not interpreted as OPTARG?
Sorry, but I don't see a problem here. So I cannot give a procedure. But if that cannot be solved by an algorithm, I wonder what magic the Aldor compiler must do to produce some functioning code from the different uses of "==". >> In fact, if I define a function (sorry, it's again Aldor) >> >> foo(b: Integer): Integer == ... >> >> then it should be possible to call foo via >> >> foo(3) >> foo(b==7) >> >> so also here the "b==" is optional similar to the union case. See AUG >> Sections 6.3 + 6.4. > > You should know by now that `Aldor does it that way' is no substitute for > rational argument, at least if you're discussing directions for OpenAxiom. I'm not discussing directions for OpenAxiom in particular. I don't want that all the branches diverge too much. If you want me to keep quiet just let me know and I unsubscribe from the openaxiom mailing list. > And since your brought it up, I'm not happy with '=' being parsed as '=' or > 'equation' depending on the context. I don't remember that I brought up an issue with '='. But actually, why do you see a problem with =: (%, %) -> Boolean =: (%, %) -> Equation % ? Ralf ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. 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
