Come to think of it, shouldn't "machine" or implementation-dependent *equality* be handled the same way? It has always seemed rather confusing to me that '=' is used in Axiom for this. (Both FriCAS and OpenAxiom still do this.) Although there is the notion of "canonical" which implies something about the relationship between equality in a domain versus equality in the representation domain (Rep). Of course using < for an implementation-dependent ordering was even more conusing. But all domains in Axiom ultimately share the same underlying representation. In a sense reflection is just about making this deeper level representation visible.
Regards, Bill Page. On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 3:35 PM, Bill Page <bill.p...@newsynthesis.org> wrote: > Gaby, > > On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 2:41 PM, you wrote: >>... >> This is just binary relation. It is an obscure binary relation, much >> of which not related to the actual mathematics that OpenAxiom >> wants to deal with. That is part of the reasons why it is not glorified >> into a category of its own. >> ... > > Instead of being exported by a category perhaps 'before?' (or > equivalent) should be part of a "machine-oriented" or > reflection-oriented package? So then it is not part of the normal > "namespace" of any domain and the programmer would have to > specifically import the domain reflection package in order to use it. > > Regards, > Bill Page. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Come build with us! The BlackBerry® Developer Conference in SF, CA is the only developer event you need to attend this year. Jumpstart your developing skills, take BlackBerry mobile applications to market and stay ahead of the curve. Join us from November 9-12, 2009. Register now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/devconf _______________________________________________ open-axiom-devel mailing list open-axiom-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/open-axiom-devel
