Re: [Axiom-developer] Axisp news

[Stephen Wilson]

Ralf Hemmecke <address@hidden> writes:

> > 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".

Ok.  There are certainly issues and am dropping the idea for now.

> 
> > 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.

Yes.  Unfortuanately it is not so ordinary for Spad.  I will see what
I can do.

> 
> Ralf

Thanks,
Steve