On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 12:06 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> Your earlier suggestion
>
> Bill Page <bill.p...@newsynthesis.org> writes:
> # On the other hand, if there is no OldDomain then it is necessary to
> # specify the domain that will represent this new domain. We could do it
> # like this:
> #
> # Foo(...): with
> # ...
> # == Rep(SomeDomain) add
> # ... rep ... per ...
>
> reads to me that somehow the Rep of SomeDomain is exported.
> I'm saying I would like to see datasets that demonstrate the clear
> benifits of exporting the representation of a domain.
>
> If you're not proposing to export the Rep, then your proposal is a bit
> obscure to me. Would you mind clarifying why the above does not
> amount to exporting the Rep of SomeDomain?
>
Because it is not part of the 'with' clause and appears to the right
of ==. Similarly, the operations of OldDomain are not automatically
exported in
Foo(...): with
...
== OldDomain add
... rep ... per ...
The result is exactly the same as if I had written:
Foo(...): with
...
== add
Rep==SomeDomain
... rep ... per ...
In SPAD a natural variant might also allow replacement of the
parenthesis with indentation. For example:
Foo(...): with
...
== Rep
Record(A: ...
B: ...)
add
... rep ... per ...
---
The point of this construction is just to give Rep a more prominant
place in the SPAD syntax and make it syntactically incorrect to
specify Rep in the case of add-inheritance or by placing it in some
odd location in the body of the domain.
Regards,
Bill Page.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
open-axiom-devel mailing list
open-axiom-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/open-axiom-devel
