Bill Page <bill.p...@newsynthesis.org> writes: | > | On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 4:43 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | > | > ... | > | > I would reserve the use of InputForm for syntatic canonical | > | > forms of mathematical objects. | > | > | > | Bill Page wrote: | > | Currently InputForm values can arise both from parsing of input | > | strings and | > | | On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 9:48 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | > | > That is the job of Syntax domain in OpenAxiom. | > | | Although it sounds logical and desirable, I suppose that direct | conversion of values in the Syntax domain to "canonical" values in | InputForm is a rather hard problem. No?
The Syntax domain's primary purpose is as vehicle for terms. Terms are semanticalled analyzed (e.g. type checked, resolved), and evaluated. The evaluation produces a computer representation of a mathematical object, specified by a domain. That domain provides -a- canonical internal repsentation (e.g. dense vs. sparse, factored vs. fully expanded). To get from internal to external representation, OpenAxiom uses InputForm, which in displayed form is a linear notation for the canonical internal representation. So, I do not know you understand by 'direct conversion'. A Syntax domain object does not necessarily makes sense (e.g. may NOT type check), whereas an InputForm is supposed to have a meaning. | I am tempted to argue in fact that the primary purpose of most of the | rest of panAxiom is to do just this sort of conversion - through the | algebraic "back door" so-to-speak ... I see OpenAxiom as aiming at computational mathematics as opposed to just being specialized for algebraic computations only. -- Gaby _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list Axiom-developer@nongnu.org http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer