Probably. I would like to see a discussion about what is necessary to support computational mathematics in Axiom, rather than how closely SPAD should ressemble another language. Well, as you know I
I just checked in the first attempt to an axiom-port of aldor-combinat. Unfortunately, we won't get anywhere with the current abilities of axiom and the aldor interface. Meanwhile, we would need both
I think it MIGHT be possible for us to make SPAD support the key feature or two we want from Aldor (type behavior, etc.) but even if we do that, we are still faced with the problem that SPAD as a lan
I suppose so. I was wondering if perhaps academic interest in such a project might be generated - there are a number of teams around the world working on related tasks. Yes, Ocaml would make the poss
I think that this is so far past our current skill level and the available resources that there is virtually no chance that this will ever be anything but a paper exercise. If we have to live without
A point which is probably orthogonal to this discussion but is something to consider is why we would want to target Aldor towards something other than lisp, in the first place. Axiom's core is curren
Omitted for brevity. Please refer to: http://wiki.axiom-developer.org/SandBoxAldorSemantics "The general syntax for a constant definition is: x : T == E x is an identifier giving the name of the cons
Has expressions A ``has'' expression has the following form: dom has cat where dom is a domain-valued expression, and cat is a category-valued expression. A ``has'' expression may be used in any part
Wow! Nice. And X: CatX == if false then (address@hidden) else (address@hidden); gives X has CatA: F X has CatB: T X has CatX: T That's excellent. Hear, hear! Please, let's find a way to free him! :-)
Hello, you will probably not have any luck with 0. It is too small. But what about 1073741824? For those who cannot convert dec to hex on the fly: "But what about 0x40000000?" :) The upcoming part is
great! no. It is (scarcly..) described in "developernotes", I think. yes. yes, this is what I'd expect. Well, not quite. I'd expect Type:MyInt... Look at outform.spad and out.spad. (I think the latte
Since there is no definition of "Integer" in that file, the compiler must know about that thing or it must look into integer.spad to find what Integer stands for. Yes, yes, I know, here the whole bus
Isn't that sort of like saying "complex reals" (sic) are a kind of real number. ;) And you forgot "Omnific Integers" ... :) http://mathworld.wolfram.com/OmnificInteger.html But I am inclined to agree
Hmm. I hadn't thought of that but you're right, at least for the basic stuff. Well, it's been a few months so I guess I'm ready for a look at it with fresh eyes. OK. Here's a link for the lazy (me in
The logical starting point might be to try to encode your units work in Axiom using Aldor. Since you don't depend on anything there cannot be an issue. And it will provide a learning experience for
But, but, ... he sputters ... I thought Axiom was supposed to be a system for mathematicians, or at least a system to do mathematics by computer. From that point of view there is barely a telescope l
Is this still true? I have heard a couple variations of the BOOT/Lisp story, but I haven't heard there was a concensus that the look and feel of Lisp should be avoided. If so, I would be very interes
If the problems with the inclusion of Aldor into the Axiom distribution are resolved, we should certainly consider moving the algebra library to the Aldor language. I have no idea how much work woul
Thank you very much for the links! Obvsiouly, I have not been paying enough attention to the axiom mailing list traffic :-( [...] Funny we arrived to the same sources through totally different roads
The interpreter and the SPAD compiler are largely separate as is obviously since Aldor is able to substitute for SPAD. But I agree that a deep knowledge of the interpreter is also required for other