Re: [Axiom-developer] Axisp news

[Ralf Hemmecke]

> Im not going to try and defend the idea, as I feel I can work with
> simpler notions.  But 1 and + would be considered value identifiers.

You might be right, but what I will certainly do in a near future is an 
implementation of a domain whose elements are combinatorial species. 
That domain will be a semiring, so I will use + and 1 to denote the 
"elements" Plus
(http://www.risc.uni-linz.ac.at/people/hemmecke/AldorCombinat/combinatsu23.html#x37-550008.10)
and EmptySetSpecies 
(http://www.risc.uni-linz.ac.at/people/hemmecke/AldorCombinat/combinatsu17.html#x31-380008.4.1).
As you see these identifiers actually denote not only domains but 
functions that return domains. Would you like me not to use 1 just 
because my elements would be domains?

Having the types as first class objects has the consequence that type 
can appear in places where you expect an "element".

> However, I need to explore the use tuples exclusively to lift types
> otherwise hidden by sope into an enclosing context.  I suspected that
> type patterns would be generally useful but I like the simplicity of
> Martins approach and will try to work with that.

Martin was just demonstrating ordinary use of a dependent type.

Ralf