Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: Lisp may not be dead, but...

[Martin Rubey]

Dear Peter,

Peter Broadbery <address@hidden> writes:

> > (did you send this in private intentionally?)

> Feel free to forward.

done

> > Peter Broadbery <address@hidden> writes:
> > 
> > > Forcing the interpreter to understand dependent types is a bit of an
> > > unknown quantity to me - my sole attempt at trying ended up with the
> > > aldor compiler crashing while creating the .asy file, so I couldn't see
> > > what axiom would do with it.  Having the aldor source would have been
> > > nice at that point.  My suspicion is that it would be possible to fix the
> > > interpreter, at least as far as function lookup.
 
> > > Types as 100% first class objects might be difficult in axiom as is -
> > > there's a lot of stuff in function lookup that works from the name of a
> > > type as opposed to a value.
> > 
> > Well, one thing we currently need for Axiom-Combinat is to be able to have
> > a List of domains, and be able to pick one and use it. I'm afraid that's
> > about as far as first class can get... Still, we really need that.
> > 
> Do these domains have a common category?  

Yes.

> Do you need the precise exports of the domain, or is the category enough? 

I'd guess that the category is enough. Not sure here. But any progress would be
great, of course.

> Boxing the domains within a common one for axiom's purposes might be possible
> - or you've tried that one?

Not sure what you mean here.

> As far as me trying to update axiom - I never had a great deal of exposure to
> how the type handling worked in axiom - that said, if there is an obvious way
> of making dependent types work (and even 1st class domains), I'd be willing
> to have a stab at it, time permitting.

PLEASE do. It seems that you are the only one with the knowledge who is still
around!


Thanks, for everything,

Martin