On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 1:11 PM, Ralf Hemmecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 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.
I see. > 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. Well, the Union problem brought forward by Bill is about what OpenAxiom can do about it in the future. If you believe that discussion of directions for OpenAxiom is no interest to you, then well, just stay out of it. > I don't want that all the branches diverge too much. OpenAxiom is not a branch. > If you want me to keep quiet just let me > know and I unsubscribe from the openaxiom mailing list. Well, your messages have not been obnoxious to the point of warranting an instruction for you to watch what you say or write. > >> 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 '='. I was referring to your sentence # Clearly, that are to versions of "optional", but I like the equal syntax using "==" of ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ # keyword argument and also for the case of the union above. but, apparently, you were speaking of something you did know existed. > But actually, why do > you see a problem with > > =: (%, %) -> Boolean > =: (%, %) -> Equation % > > ? Try 1 = 1 -- Gaby ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
