--- Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On February 13, 2006 6:14 PM C Y wrote:
> >...
> > However, based on your comments below, I would suggest
> > the following steps might be immediately useful:
> >
> > a) Post the downloads for aldor on the Axiom site (I still can't
> > get through to
On February 13, 2006 6:14 PM C Y wrote:
>...
> However, based on your comments below, I would suggest
> the following steps might be immediately useful:
>
> a) Post the downloads for aldor on the Axiom site (I still can't
> get through to aldor.org :-( and the site is slower now) - I think
> this
--- Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On February 13, 2006 4:22 PM C Y wrote:
> >
> > --- Bill Page wrote:
> > > ... (Sorry Cliff, I don't mean to sound
> > > too harsh but we have so few resources working on Axiom that I
> > > worry that such unrealistic ideas can only serve to divert our
>
On February 13, 2006 4:22 PM C Y wrote:
>
> --- Bill Page wrote:
> > ... (Sorry Cliff, I don't mean to sound
> > too harsh but we have so few resources working on Axiom that I
> > worry that such unrealistic ideas can only serve to divert our
> > attention from what we can actually accomplish.)
>
--- Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ..
> > I can't help wondering if the material in the Reference section
> > of the Aldor Users Guide might be enough for us to define at
> > least a basic Aldor compiler in Lisp, and build on that.
>
> This suggestion has been made a few times so I thin
Ralf,
I think perhaps we can view SubDomain as the first steps towards computing
with provisos (i.e. "provided that ... clauses") and it is closely related
to the concept of "indefinite types" as explained by Tim Daly:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/axiom-developer/2005-05/msg00205.html
http
On February 13, 2006 2:42 PM C Y wrote:
>
> That said, if Tim has already redone a given part in Literate
> Lisp, it's not worth redoing his work in Aldor for the foreseeable
> future - work of that quality can't be easily duplicated and for
> certain aspects of Axiom Lisp is in fact a good match.
--- Ralf Hemmecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> To me it doesn't matter whether the code is in BOOT or LISP. BOOT is
> not well documented and LISP is too low-level for my taste. Why
> cannot all this be written in Aldor? And without tricks, please.
> And, of course, well documented in pamphlets
Bill Page wrote:
I don't speak "BOOT" either but I am slowly learning to read it a
little. :) I agree that in the absence of any documentation, this
is quite obscure. This is the kind of "source code archaeology"
that Tim Daly has referred to in the past. Tim has proposed re-
writing this in Lisp
Greg,
On February 13, 2006 10:31 AM you wrote:
>
> Bill Page wrote:
> > I was not aware that the order in which the pre-compiled modules
> > are listed could affect how they behave. Of course, for initial
> > compilation from source only certain orders are possible based
> > on the intermodule de
On February 12, 2006 7:05 PM Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
> ...
> No I did not check. I don't speak "BOOT".
I don't speak "BOOT" either but I am slowly learning to read it a
little. :) I agree that in the absence of any documentation, this
is quite obscure. This is the kind of "source code archaeology"
t
Hi,
> I was not aware that the order in which the pre-compiled modules
> are listed could affect how they behave. Of course, for initial
> compilation from source only certain orders are possible based
> on the intermodule dependencies (at least there are no circular
> dependencies here! :). But i
12 matches
Mail list logo
