Martin, I think this attempt to interest people who read the lisp news group is a good idea. I am skeptical however about the hope to extended the SPAD compiler to include Aldor functionality. I thin
I think you over-estimate the value of a "free Aldor" and underestimate the costs. Sure, I do. ;-) But a non-free Aldor cannot serve the scientific community at all. All CAS people that were interest
OpenAxiom is a free software and will remain so. OpenAxiom is under the BSD license and will remain so. OpenAxiom will support libraries written in Aldor, but OpenAxiom's own algebra will not depend
This is due to recent change in wh-sandbox. The following patch should fix this problem: Thanks, that did it. Below are (roughly, it took some trial and error to figure it out) the steps which made i
Off topic, but a question about Aldor - if you compile Aldor routines into c and build that c code, can other Aldor routines compiled into Lisp still interact with the compiled c based modules? Does
Bill Page wrote: On March 4, 2007 9:46 PM Doug Stewart wrote: Bill Page wrote: nyone have any idea exactly what "v. 1.1-rc" refers? Note: The current version of the Aldor compiler is: v1.0.3. Where c
The discussions I am seeing so far seem to largely indicate that we need to take SPAD in the direction Aldor went, at least to start with. This is not surprising as Aldor itself was intended to fix p
OK, thanks for the explanation. Since I'm not in the business of cloning Aldor, I'm not sure how that affects Axiom. I don't see a point of cloning Aldor. I see great benefits in an improved SPAD. [.
Dear Tim, In fact, I consider this good news: if your contribution was to make Aldor work inside Axiom, maybe you can help make dependent types coming from code compiled with Aldor work in Axiom? Pet
For me this is totally clear: SPAD should become a free implementation of the Aldor language. It would not make sense to have to different languages around. And, as you know, in my opinion the first
Hello Bill, Thanks a lot for your answer. It is certainly more than saying aldor -O -Fasy -Fao -Flsp -laxiom -Mno-AXL_W_WillObsolete -DAxiom -Y $AXIOM/algebra blah.as (without having an Axiom session
Yes. Do you mean generate stand alone object files from .lsp files? This would be done with a Lisp compiler, of course. In principle you can use GCL just like Axiom does, but you must also provide a
Ralf, I disagree. What we are talking about is "type inference" and such inferences can depend on context. Well, it might be better to say that "type" is not an intrinsic property of a value or even
On 07/24/2006 08:12 PM, Bill Page wrote: On July 24, 2006 1:15 PM Ralf Hemmecke wrote: ... What I wanted to demonstrate is that "A add {...}" has a type and is a value of its own. Hmmm... in Aldor va
[...] http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=292560&coll=Portal&dl=GUIDE&CFID=2132016&CFTOKEN=35552809 http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=289451&dl=GUIDE&coll=Portal&CFID=2132016&CFTOKEN=35552809 f
Strongly agreed. We should be at the point where, we have the definition of the language on one hand, what the compiler does on the other hand, and check whether it is the language that is defined t
Hello Stephen, first of all, thank you for sharing some insight about Aldor. I love the approach that domain-constructing functions are _not_ treated special, but the speciality is hidden in the cont
Figures. So we actually want to retarget Axiom to Aldor+libaldor, rather than just the Aldor compiler itself? OK. So Aldor+libaldor should contain all the non-mathematical tools we will need to begin
Changes http://wiki.axiom-developer.org/Fraction/diff -- Here is the code that demonstrates how to use conditional representations in Aldor for the domain constructor [Fraction]. I prepended the cons