[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: SPAD and Aldor again

From: Ralf Hemmecke
Subject: Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: SPAD and Aldor again
Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 22:14:39 +0100
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20061025)

Rep and Per are good for many things, but it might be worth adding a
shorthand for 'my representation is just a record'.  Don't think of Rep
as an instance variable - it's a mapping between your type and an
underlying one.  That said, a default representation of Rep + Record
might be an interesting idea.

Peter, perhaps you know ...

The only thing that makes "Rep", "rep", and "per" special is:

macro {
        rep x == ((x)@%) pretend Rep;
        per r == ((r)@Rep) pretend %;

from include/

Now let us assume that everywhere in the libaldor sources we would replace

  Rep <--- Foo
  rep <--- bar
  per <--- rab

I guess the compiler would still accept the code and even produces an identical library (up to name changes and hash codes etc).

Or does the compiler know about a special treatment of "Rep" (in contrast to "Foo")?

Going a bit further... is % known to the compiler? Or could I also replace that (above and in file) by something else like "Bar", for example?

I'm really curious.

Thanks in advance

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]