|
|
last edited 16 years ago by Bill Page |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 | ||
Editor: hemmecke
Time: 2008/07/08 11:27:54 GMT-7 |
||
Note: Why Type is not an Aldor-domain? |
added:
From hemmecke Tue Jul 8 11:27:54 -0700 2008
From: hemmecke
Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 11:27:54 -0700
Subject: Why Type is not an Aldor-domain?
Message-ID: <20080708112754-0700@axiom-wiki.newsynthesis.org>
In-Reply-To: <20080708090117-0700@axiom-wiki.newsynthesis.org>
I simply have not found an explicit statement in the AUG that says that
'Type' and 'Category' are domains. How else could I claim that they are?
And regardless of what others say, could you give *your* definitions similar
to what I started at the beginning of this page? Let's first collect the status,
before we argue, what implications it would have if 'Type' would be a domain.
Maybe in the end it doesn't matter whether or not 'Category' and 'Type' are domains.
There seems to be different understandings of Type, domain, category, Category, etc. around. Here is an attempt to collect all these different opinions in order to make discussion about them clearer.
A category is an L-type whose type is the language-defined constant Category
.
A domain is an L-type whose type is a category.
An L-type is either a category, a domain or the language-defined constants Category
and Type
.
Any L-type is of type Type
.
I wrote L-type to mean type in the language, either Aldor or SPAD.
That conflicts the above statement that Type
is a domain, but is in line with the
two-level domain/category model.
See also Sections 7.8 (Domains) and 7.9 (Categories) of the Aldor User Guide.
I haven't (yet) found a sentence that says that Type
or Category
are domains.
Every value in Aldor is a member of a unique domain which determines the interpretation of its data.
All type values have ``Type'' as their unique base type. As with all other values, it is the unique base type which determines how values are to be represented.
The language allows categories to be treated as normal values and allows names to refer to categories. A category (by definition) is a value of the Aldor built-in type Category.
Type
being a type. But Type
is not an Aldor-domain.
Maybe it is a domain in a broader sense, but that sense is only vaguely defined, if at all.
I would like not to use domain and type interchangeably.
Type
is a domain certainly does not make domain
and type interchangeable. Objects of the domain Type
are
themselves either domains or categories, so type and domain
are still not interchangeable since categories are not domains.
Could you explain why you claim that "Type is not an Aldor-domain". Is this only a personal preference? To me: "If it talks like a duck and it looks like a duck, its a duck...". In this case the compiler output, the library definitions, and quotations from the primary developer all agree:
Type has with {};
returns true.
Type
and Category
are domains. How else could I claim that they are?
And regardless of what others say, could you give your definitions similar
to what I started at the beginning of this page? Let's first collect the status,
before we argue, what implications it would have if Type
would be a domain.
Maybe in the end it doesn't matter whether or not Category
and Type
are domains.