Francois Maltey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...]
| It looks like mathematical expression {matrix ... | (a,b,c,d) in {1..9}^4}. | | This command breaks this previous mathematical set | but build Union_{for a} (Unioun_{for b} (Unioun_{for c} set matrix for d)) | | concat [concat [concat [[matrix [[a,b,15-a-b],[c,d,15-c-d]] for a in 1..9] | for b in 1..9] for c in 1..9] for d in 1..9] | | mupad doesn't has a perfect syntax because lists and intervals don't have | the same operator : [..x.. $x in L] and [..x.. $x=1..10]. Axiom makes better ! | [..x.. for x in L] and [..x.. for x in 1..10]. | | For theses 2 examples I feel mupad better than maple. I don't know mathematica. | | Is it an answer to your question ? A general remark: `Perfect syntax' is an illusion. Mathematics are great for ideas, but their notations are deceptive sources of inspiration. One source of difficulty is that mathematical notations use full 2-3 dimensions, whereas we are still struggling with sequence of characters. Another source of difficulty is that mathematical notations are highly context sensitive -- you don't really want a programming language to have a highly context sensitive syntax when you plan to write large libraries in that language. There are things that work well for `programming in small' (e.g. scripts of 10-20 lines) and things do not scale to `programming in large' (e.g. 10-100 thousands of lines of libraries) -- Gaby _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list Axiom-developer@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer