sure, i understand the reasoning, i just didn't know it was actually
implemented / verified in any way. rewriting the code now... cheers,
andrew
On Thursday, 9 July 2015 12:03:57 UTC-3, Yichao Yu wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 10:59 AM, andrew cooke <and...@acooke.org
> <javascript:>> wrote:
> >
> > ah! thank-you. i had no idea about that.
> >
> > is there any kind of isbits container? will a tuple work?
>
> The type system uses === to compare the parameters (and it has to be
> this way since it should be simple) so having a reference to a mutable
> should never work. If you want an array of `isbits` as parameter, an
> tuple of it should work on 0.4
>
>
> Another way to see why a vector should never work is that e.g. you have
>
> a = [1, 2]
> T1 = A{a}
> push!(a, 3)
> T2 = A{an}
> T3 = A{[1, 2]}
> T4 = A{[1, 2]}
>
> Should any of the T*'s be equal?
>
>
> >
> > thanks again,
> >
> > andrew
> >
> >
> > On Thursday, 9 July 2015 11:56:45 UTC-3, Yichao Yu wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 10:52 AM, andrew cooke <and...@acooke.org>
> wrote:
> >> > I want to do what I wrote, I think! In particular, the type
> parameter
> >> > is
> >> > itself a value, the polynomial x. It's immutable and a subclass of
> >> > Integer.
> >> > So I have no idea why the code should not work.
> >>
> >> It's not `isbits` though.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > It's unusual to have a complex value like that in a type, I know, but
> it
> >> > makes logical sense here - it's the type of values in the quotient
> ring
> >> > with
> >> > that ideal.
> >> >
> >> > Andrew
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Thursday, 9 July 2015 11:44:42 UTC-3, Tom Breloff wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm not 100% sure I understand what you want, but here's a stab for
> >> >> line
> >> >> 16:
> >> >>
> >> >> ZField{T1.parameters[1],T2}(x)
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Thursday, July 9, 2015 at 10:32:28 AM UTC-4, andrew cooke wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Before I raise an issue I wondered if I've made some stupid mistake
> >> >>> here.
> >> >>> The code is about as simple as I can make it. The idea behind
> things
> >> >>> is
> >> >>> that you have a field of integers module 2 (GF2). Then over that
> you
> >> >>> define
> >> >>> polynomials. And then you can define a Quotient Ring with the
> >> >>> polynomials,
> >> >>> which is analogous to the initial field, and so you can use the
> same
> >> >>> type as
> >> >>> the rogiinal field. But you don't need to understand that!
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Here's the code:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> immutable ZField{N, I<:Integer} <: Integer
> >> >>> i::I
> >> >>> end
> >> >>>
> >> >>> immutable ZPoly{I<:Integer} <: Integer
> >> >>> a::Vector{I}
> >> >>> end
> >> >>>
> >> >>> T1 = ZField{2,Int}
> >> >>> o = T1(1)
> >> >>>
> >> >>> T2 = ZPoly{T1}
> >> >>> x = T2([o, o])
> >> >>>
> >> >>> ZField{x,T2}(x)
> >> >>>
> >> >>> And this is the error (from the last line, which is line 16)
> >> >>>
> >> >>> andrew@laptop:~> julia-trunk IntModN.jl
> >> >>> ERROR: LoadError: TypeError: apply_type: in ZField, expected Int64,
> >> >>> got
> >> >>> ZPoly{ZField{2,Int64}}
> >> >>> in include at ./boot.jl:254
> >> >>> in include_from_node1 at loading.jl:133
> >> >>> in process_options at ./client.jl:305
> >> >>> in _start at ./client.jl:405
> >> >>> while loading /home/andrew/IntModN.jl, in expression starting on
> line
> >> >>> 16
> >> >>>
> >> >>> In short - I have no idea where the Int64 comes from.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Thanks,
> >> >>> Andrew
> >> >>>
> >> >
>
