Re: [Axiom-mail] Equivalence between named domain and %

[Gabriel Dos Reis]

Waldek Hebisch <address@hidden> writes:

[...]

| AFAICS:
| 
| 1) The only way to introduce a new type constructor in Spad is via
|    category or domain declaration

and abbreviations initroduce names for those.

| 2) Each category or domain is a separate compilation unit for Spad
|    compiler (even if they live in the same file).

that is being revised -- see the new format.

| 3) Recursive dependencies spanning compilation units are painful.

so?

The important thing from my perspective is not what how easy we can
make implement things; but how easy we make it to express ideas.

But hey, my implementation background is that of making is easy for
users and complicate implementers life :-)

| If you want to change Spad compiler to allow bigger compilation units,
| I would support such motion.
| 
| > Check out Haskell, or  the excellent book
| > "The implementation of Functional Languages", by Simon Peyton Jones.
| > 
| > | Also, during type checking compiler traverses varoius links (references)
| > | between types -- on has to be careful to avoid infinite loops
| > | (and when loop is detected how to give sane semantic to the loop).
| > 
| > Yes, so?
| >
| 
| Spad compiler seem to use very simple (almost naive) algorithms. You
| need smarter approach to handle cycles (smarter algorthms are known,
| one just have to implement them...)

That is not a problem -- that is why this is a research project, as
opposed to a student project.

-- Gaby