"Page, Bill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| In this context I would not call it vague or hand waving.
| They are simply referring to the behavior of the Axiom
| interpreter as it is now defined. Unfortunately I am not
| able to point you to any clear and complete system-level
| documentation
Gaby,
On Friday, March 24, 2006 2:26 PM you wrote:
>
> Bill Page writes:
> |
> | Can you give a couple of specific examples of the kind of
> | design issues where you think the authors are being too
> | vague and the problems might be difficult to solve?
>
> Yes; take the example on page 39 un
I'm in a bit over my head here but maybe these questions will be useful
in straightening me out...
--- root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> re: the future of aldor
>
> there are some sticky IP issues with aldor. Manuel was a major
> contributor and he is no longer able to agree to donate his code.
"Page, Bill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Gaby,
|
| On Friday, March 24, 2006 9:49 AM you wrote:
| >
| > Bill Page writes:
| > ...
| > | Have you read the actual B# paper? There is no "hand
| > | waving". The user interacts with only one type - the
| > | UserType. The UserType in turn has a we
Gaby,
On Friday, March 24, 2006 9:49 AM you wrote:
>
> Bill Page writes:
> ...
> | Have you read the actual B# paper? There is no "hand
> | waving". The user interacts with only one type - the
> | UserType. The UserType in turn has a well-defined
> | relationship to the underlying types defined
On Friday, March 24, 2006 8:50 AM Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
>
> On 03/24/2006 10:44 AM, Page, Bill wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 22, 2006 5:26 AM you wrote:
>
> Maybe I should be quiet, but I have a vision for Axiom and
> that simply says: Use higher level language constructs
> instead of lower level
"Page, Bill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| > re: B-natural
| >
| > B-natural won't replace the interpreter because the real
| > semantics of an expression is carried in the type. B-natural
| > has the essential goal of hand-waving away the type issues
| > to make it easier for people who d
Ralf,
On Wednesday, March 22, 2006 5:26 AM you wrote:
> ...
> I grep'ped for $Lisp. Well, that makes 2568 occurrences and
> for my taste a very bad design. Wouldn't it be much better to
> concentrate all the Lisp dependencies in just a few modules
> and write the rest depending on that modules
root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| we would probably get further faster by working out the exact
| coercion/conversion graph and formalizing the mechanism. then we could
| make the interpreter smarter as well as extend it to special domains
| (e.g. to interval arithmetic which does not pre
