"Bill Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 7:24 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | > Bill Page writes: | > ... | > | Ring is still a category. | > | > So, in your scheme something can be both a domain and a category. | > Is that right? | > | | I realize that it might seem a bit like "waffling" and avoiding the | question, but I would prefer to say that a category is just a category
:-) | - a kind of design predicate or interface specification, as you said. | But that in a context that normally requires a domain, that it can | serve as a shorthand for the associated domain: | | Union(x for x in Domain where x has Ring) then, you are not far from reaching what I call `conceptual type' (implemented by conceptualType in OpenAxiom) or `conceptual category' (implemented in one of my local trees). | | > ... | > Evaluation of category forms already yields objects of the domain | > Category -- at least in OpenAxiom. | > | | In that case shall I submit: | | (1) -> T:Category := IntegerNumberSystem | | Category is a category, not a domain, and declarations require | domains. | | as a bug report? As far as I can see, this is a restriction in the base AXIOM system carried over by OpenAxiom with no much justification now that Category really does exist. So, yes, from my perspective, it is a bug as much as I want to have both parameters and variables of type Category. (I don't know much what they would do to the system). -- Gaby ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sponsored by: SourceForge.net Community Choice Awards: VOTE NOW! Studies have shown that voting for your favorite open source project, along with a healthy diet, reduces your potential for chronic lameness and boredom. Vote Now at http://www.sourceforge.net/community/cca08 _______________________________________________ open-axiom-devel mailing list open-axiom-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/open-axiom-devel
