Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: Groebner basis

[Fabio S.]

First, let me thank all of you for your support: I will use all the hints 
in my next computations.

Effectively, I didn't think to do computations modulo a prime, even if it 
is a common trick.
Neither I thought about changing the domain where computing the groebner 
basis, but this is due to the fact that I don't know exactly in which 
domain axiom performs better.

About documentation, the input file is, in reality, a stripped version of 
a pamphlet file which I write to document my own code because I know for 
personal experience that I can't recognize _my own_ (undocumented) code of 
ten years ago... :-((
Nevertheless, the pamphlet is very much a work in progress at the 
beginning of its life: for the moment it is not yet in a publishable form.
When it will, no doubt I will submit it.

Since I am there, maybe I can ask for some doubt I have about 
pamphlet files: I started with a model which implied the use of the make 
file, using notangle and nowave.
It was quite involved.
After installing the latest silver, I discovered that now there is the 
chunck environment and that the input file can be stripped with
)lisp (tangle "input.file" "chunckname")
This greatly simplify the production of pamphlet files, since they now 
are plain LaTeX files. The questions:
1) (this is a little silly) given that a pamphlet is a latex file, is it 
"morally"  wrong to call it x.tex instead of x.pamphlet? The reason for 
this is  simply laziness: .tex files are recognized automatically by most 
editors (I use vim), whereas to obtain the same behaviour for .pamphlet 
you need some little hack.
2) is it in the plan to insert the parser (gclweb, if I am not wrong) 
inside the command
)r file.tex
so that there will be no need to bother with anything else than a latex 
file?
3) which pamphlet file in the source can be taken both as example 
and model for constructing packages/domain/category which is complete, 
yet simple enough, and selfcontained?


Finally, I just want to express my opinion, without willing to reopen
last year discussions, so please delete, and do not reply to, this remark.
It is really a pity that there is dispersion of resources in axiom 
development.
Yes, Tim: I do agree completely with the 30 years horizont...
You could extend it also to \aleph_0 and I would still agree!
This is the only way to have a program which should be like mathematics 
itself: there to stay.

Fabio