Ralf Hemmecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> How do we resolve things like Aldor's libalgebra vs. Axiom's libraries? > > > I would propose that we forget about Aldor's native libraries for now (as > > nice, though limited, as they are). > > If I knew where to hook libaldor into Axiom, I would already have done > so. But libaldor basically starts from zero and for Axiom the whole > construction of the domains and categories is still mystical to me. > > In any case if SPAD should be translated to Aldor one has to start with some > domain or category.
Yes. But what exactly is mystical to you? Everything starts in catdef.spad, and in fact the code is very easy to read, I find. The polynomial hierarchy should probably be taken from Aldor, I believe it is superior. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So, the real effort would be to design a sound hierarchy and then translate the bits one at a time, using new algorithms as we go along. (For example, replacing the huge algorithm for calculating the limit of an expression by the simple mrv algorithm also used by MuPAD) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Maybe it is even possible to mix libraries in an intermediate step, so that we don't have to do the transition all at once. Some time ago I proposed to Antoine to implement a hierarchy of function domains (i.e., polynomials, rational functions, algebraic functions, holonomic functions, etc.), since this is currently missing, resp., not well solved in Axiom. This would also be in a sense quite independent of the implementation of other classes, so I suppose it should be done in Aldor. Martin _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list Axiom-developer@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
