--- Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On April 29, 2006 9:53 PM C Y wrote:
> > ...
> > The pamphlet version is here:
> >
> > http://wiki.axiom-developer.org/SandBoxAxiomEmacsMode
> >
> > and should work fine on Linux.
>
> I think your emacs mode project using pamphlet files on
> Axiom Wiki
On April 29, 2006 9:53 PM C Y wrote:
> ...
> The pamphlet version is here:
>
> http://wiki.axiom-developer.org/SandBoxAxiomEmacsMode
>
> and should work fine on Linux.
I think your emacs mode project using pamphlet files on
Axiom Wiki is a great demonstration of how to do this kind
of collaborat
--- Ralf Hemmecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Cliff,
>
> thanks for your work on axiommode.el, but I really really wonder, why
> that is not a pamphlet file. Or is it and I just don't know?
Sort of. Sorry, I should have been clearer. The pamphlet version is
here:
http://wiki.axiom-deve
"Bill Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On April 26, 2006 2:50 PM Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| >
| > Tim Daly (root) writes:
| >
| > | All of that effort is due to Camm. Unfortunately his tarball of
| > | patches are all undocumented so I have no idea why those changes
| > | are necessary. I'm r
Oooop, no it was not intentional that I forgot the code in my last mail
on this thread. Sorry.
Ralf
---
CombClass
Copyright (C) Ralf Hemmecke ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://www.hemmecke.de/aldor
--
Hello Cliff,
thanks for your work on axiommode.el, but I really really wonder, why
that is not a pamphlet file. Or is it and I just don't know?
Always think of those poor guys who come after you and had to modify
your stuff.
Ralf
___
Axiom-deve
There is definitely a strange problem with the CVS at SourceForge.
I have not been following the thread closely but SF has locked
anonymous checkout because they had problems with it.
I work on a project where the latest we can get is a March 9th update
when the developer keeps adding stuf
Hello,
On 04/29/2006 11:01 PM, Bill Page wrote:
Martin,
On April 29, 2006 3:39 PM you wrote:
attached you find a screenshot from some code and its output
that has emerged from the Axiom Workshop 2006. I hope you like
it. Note that the two lines in the upper frame define TreeClass
completely a
--- Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Martin,
>
> On April 29, 2006 3:39 PM you wrote:
> >
> > attached you find a screenshot from some code and its output
> > that has emerged from the Axiom Workshop 2006. I hope you like
> > it. Note that the two lines in the upper frame define TreeClas
Martin,
On April 29, 2006 3:39 PM you wrote:
>
> attached you find a screenshot from some code and its output
> that has emerged from the Axiom Workshop 2006. I hope you like
> it. Note that the two lines in the upper frame define TreeClass
> completely as a domain, given the domain Atom and the
Dear all,
attached you find a screenshot from some code and its output that has emerged
from the Axiom Workshop 2006. I hope you like it. Note that the two lines in
the upper frame define TreeClass completely as a domain, given the domain Atom
and the functors CrossClass and UnionClass...
The cod
On April 26, 2006 2:50 PM Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
> Tim Daly (root) writes:
>
> | All of that effort is due to Camm. Unfortunately his tarball of
> | patches are all undocumented so I have no idea why those changes
> | are necessary. I'm reluctant to make changes without understanding.
> | >
On April 25, 2006 5:44 PM Tim Daly (root) wrote:
>
> > | patch applied. fixed in the next release --t
> >
> > Gaby asked:
> >
> > is this also in the SVN repository?
>
> no. i cannot yet reach the svn repositories.
>
Tim, maybe that was because you were not actually registered at
SourceForge t
On April 26, 2006 10:39 PM Vanuxem Grégory wrote:
>
> On 26 avril 2006 à 22:01 -0400, Tim Daly (root) wrote:
> ...
> > These are the first few lines of the Makefile for the latest
> > version just checked out from the sourceforge cvs.
> ...
> > #GCLVERSION=gcl-2.6.7
> > GCLVERSION=gcl-2.6.8pre
> .
Camm Maguire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| but this really should be reported to the gcc people and their bug tracker
| as explained in the instructions referred to above.
The issue is now fixed in the current working development version of GCC
[gcc version 4.2.0 20060428 (experimental)].
Camm Maguire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| > For my curiosity: is it expected that the .o coming from compiling a
| > .lsp actually is NOT a "usual" .o file?
| >
|
| No, usually the .data file is appended to the .o output by gcc, but
| here the latter is empty.
Aha; thanks!
-- Gaby
__
16 matches
Mail list logo
