I don't suggest that "pretend" be removed. Just like general casts in C, or similar constructs in other languages, I don't think it should be removed and yet make Spad (or Aldor) expressive enough. O
On Aldor type system discussion : No all parameter of a type are equivalent( see program at the end) : MyVecCat( 10) == MyVecCat( 20) but MyListCat( Int ) != MyListCat( String) Even if the argument i
Greetings, and thank you for this initiative! If someone can concisely specify exactly what is missing in SPAD vis a vis Aldor, it would be most helpful. What are these most remarkable features? Exam
Aldor and Spad are quite similar. Ralf already pointed out one of the differences. In Aldor you may choose between "pile" syntax, which is the syntax used by Spad, i.e., blocks are defined by indenta
Indeed. The Aldor documentation is not free at all, and any attempt to define Aldor in a literate style would have to duplicate Aldor without duplicating too closely its documentation - that's a real
I am affraid we will have two different languages: there are legal reasons and technical ones: I do not see why we should limit ourselfs to capabilites present in Aldor and (assuming that we want thi
Martin, Agreed. I have not found any easy way to do this nor enough time to do the necessary programming. Any kind of unit testing for Axiom would be a big improvement. Save for example, makes extens
Hmm. But aren't there some cases where you want this, like (say) knowing that 4 is a real integer without having to explicitly say that? (Sorry that's probably a dumb question). The phrase "real inte
Ok, good. Communicating by email is always a danger since it is so hard to "smile while you say something that sounds critical". Just sometimes I feel so strongly about something that I can resist. :
I am quite sure Tim has not touched this part (i.e. the SPAD compiler's implementation of SubDomain) yet. Tim? Converting this stuff to working Lisp (other than just keeping the Boot generated Lisp),
An Aldor parser written in Aldor?! I did not receive the rest of the background of this email, but it certainly sounds interesting. Could you forward a copy to the email list? I disagree completely.
I agree. I have argued that this is a good thing because allowing dependent "signatures" is really better represented mathematically as a functor, i.e. something that provides new objects as well as
Let's hope this is not one more promise... The standard relase scheme says that "-rc" means "Release Candidate". Basically, it calls for testers. If some critical programs are found, then the release
Axiom Developers; In case you haven't noticed ... The Aldor web site: http://www.aldor.org has a new look and a new message: News Feb. 19, 2007 * v. 1.1-rc (bug fixes) released; Coming Soon: * Aldor
Hello, There is a difference in the semantic, but I cannot remember that I have found a proper explanation of what "Ident: SomeType == Dom" actually means (no "add" here). In the above the value of '
Dear Aldor Developers and Users; As you know, Aldor was originally developed at IBM as the new version of the Axiom library compiler. All of the original IBM Axiom source code is now available as ope
Jay, Were you still planning on posting this "petition" on the Axiom Wiki website? I think it is fine except for a couple of typos and a few suggested changes in wording that I point out below. Perha