On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 6:47 PM, Bill Page wrote: > >> The monoid >> problem does not prevent us from usefully defining 'Monoid' (and >> 'AbelianMonoid') now, and it should not prevent us from defining >> concepts like 'PartiallyOrderedSet'. > > Definitely. I just don't see how that solve the present problem. > Maybe you can show me by carrying out the idea in a concrete > modification of the OpenAxiom algebra that we can all test and > comment on? >
I am a little afraid to attempt "deep" changes to the Algebra like this in OpenAxiom because of the potential for database inconsistencies and other parts of the bootstrap (e.g. generated Lisp code). Am I wrong to be worried about that? But my point is that the present problem is *only* due to the "misguided syntactic transformations". Eliminate those and you eliminate the problem. The rest of my comments relate to how you might be able to replace these misguided transformations by more sensible semantic ones. Regards, Bill Page. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ open-axiom-devel mailing list open-axiom-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/open-axiom-devel
