Bill Page <bill.p...@newsynthesis.org> writes:
| On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > ...
| > Another example: Consider the function leftLcm from
| > NonCommutativeOperatorDivision(P,F) where
| > P: MonogenicLinearOperator(F)
| > F: Field
| >
| > the function definition is:
| >
| > leftLcm(a,b) ==
| > a = 0 =>b
| > b = 0 =>a
| > b0 := b
| > u := monomial(1,0)$P
| > v := 0
| > while leadingCoefficient b ~= 0 repeat
| > qr := leftDivide(a,b)
| > (a, b) := (b, qr.remainder)
| > (u, v) := (u*qr.quotient+v, u)
| > b0*u
| >
| >
| > The problem is the definition of the local variable v:
| >
| > v := 0
| >
|
| I like this example, although now I believe also your first example.
|
| > There are four candidates in scope:
| >
| > 0: P
| > 0: F
| > 0: NonNegativeInteger
| > 0: Integer
| >
| > (the right answer is 0@P).
| >
|
| So it is a coincidence that the compiler happens to choose 0@P or that
| the representation of all of these candidates is the same so that it
| does not matter?
It is mostly concidence. The explanation is that the type of leftLcm is
(P,P) -> P
and before starting the compilation of a function body, the compiler
automatically imports the return type and domain of each parameter.
So the modemap of 0@P happens to be first on the list, and since the
compilers the first that makes tentative compilation OK, it picks it and
moves on.
-- Gaby
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The demand for IT networking professionals continues to grow, and the
demand for specialized networking skills is growing even more rapidly.
Take a complimentary Learning@Cisco Self-Assessment and learn
about Cisco certifications, training, and career opportunities.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/cisco-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
open-axiom-devel mailing list
open-axiom-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/open-axiom-devel
