On Tue, May 22, 2018 at 9:26 PM, Alexey Potapov <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >> >> If needed we could also introduce some sort of entity that is between >> a Value and an Atom in some sense -- i.e. we could introduce some sort of >> TensorValue entity that >> >> 1) Perhaps, knows what links to it (like an Atom but unlike a Value) >> >> 2) has an internal tensor that is mutable >> >> There is nothing prohibiting one from building something like this >> into Atomspace, >> though obviously not breaking various mechanisms would require some >> care... >> > > OK, we will think about this. > Actually, I want you to not think about this. I strongly believe that pretty much anything you can think of will fit nicely into an Atom, or into a Value. I do not want to see a third kind of "generic object system" being created, that would be a deep mistake. However, you can create a FooBarValue C++ class, and put whatever kinds of methods that you want into it. Some methods might be commonly used, almost generic. For example, every atom type that derives from FunctionLink will always have an `execute()` C++ method on it; this is used to umm .. "make things happen". Atom types that do not derive from this do not have this method. --linas -- cassette tapes - analog TV - film cameras - you -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "opencog" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/opencog. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/opencog/CAHrUA35gJijKh7%3DeA0YGvAdtQd6VCkcqjWFFuECh5WcgG8gNSw%40mail.gmail.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
