[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with" (was curious algebra failure)
From: |
Gabriel Dos Reis |
Subject: |
Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with" (was curious algebra failure) |
Date: |
Mon, 13 Aug 2007 10:42:26 -0500 (CDT) |
On Mon, 13 Aug 2007, William Sit wrote:
|
|
| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
|
| > On Sun, 12 Aug 2007, William Sit wrote:
| >
| > | Isn't the problem whether 'Monad has SetCategory with "*":(%,%)->%' ?
| >
| > If the question is formulated in terms of "has", then I think the answer
| > is unambiguously "yes".
| >
| > But, is that the way the compiler is intended or does the matching of
| > actual arguments with formal parameters?
| >
| > It seems to me that the compiler asks the question in terms of coercible,
| > instead of "has".
| >
| > -- Gaby
|
| I believe for category parameters, the compiler checks whether the supplied
domain
| "has" the category, and for domain parameters, the compiler checks whether the
| object belongs to the domain, NOT whether the object is "coercible" to it.
Here is what is happenning when I trace the following functions:
coerceEasy coerceSubset coerceHard coerceable compImport compExpression
compForm compForm1
When compiling the default definition of ** for Monad, the compiler
notices that expt comes from RepeatedSquare(S), where S is the
parameter of type Monad to Monad&. If compiles all arguments x and n fine.
Then it has to compile the package RepeatedSquare(S) -- as if it were
a function call, since all instantiations are function calls. To achieve
that it asks the question whether S (of type Monad) is coercible to
SetCategory with "*": (%, %) -> %
And the definition of coercible does not permit to return "yes".
-- Gaby
- Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with", (continued)
- Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with", Ralf Hemmecke, 2007/08/16
- Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with", Gabriel Dos Reis, 2007/08/16
- Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with", Ralf Hemmecke, 2007/08/16
- Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with", Gabriel Dos Reis, 2007/08/16
- Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with", Ralf Hemmecke, 2007/08/16
- Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with", Gabriel Dos Reis, 2007/08/16
- Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with", Ralf Hemmecke, 2007/08/16
- Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with", Gabriel Dos Reis, 2007/08/16
- Message not available
- Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with", Gabriel Dos Reis, 2007/08/16
- Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with" (was curious algebra failure), William Sit, 2007/08/13
- Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with" (was curious algebra failure),
Gabriel Dos Reis <=
- Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with" (was curious algebra failure), Bill Page, 2007/08/13
- Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with" (was curious algebra failure), Gabriel Dos Reis, 2007/08/13
- Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with" (was curious algebra failure), Gabriel Dos Reis, 2007/08/13
- Re: [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with" (was curious algebra failure), Ralf Hemmecke, 2007/08/13
- Re: [Aldor-l] [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with" (was curious algebra failure), Gabriel Dos Reis, 2007/08/13
- Re: [Aldor-l] [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with" (was curious algebra failure), Ralf Hemmecke, 2007/08/13
- RE: [Aldor-l] [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with" (was curious algebrafailure), Weiss, Juergen, 2007/08/13
- Re: [Aldor-l] [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with" (was curious algebra failure), Bill Page, 2007/08/13
- Re: [Aldor-l] [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with" (was curious algebra failure), Gabriel Dos Reis, 2007/08/13
- Re: [Aldor-l] [Axiom-developer] "has" and "with" (was curious algebra failure), Bill Page, 2007/08/13