root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > I guess another way to phrase my question is what is the difference
| > between specifying an object file directly, from as included via
| > libspad.a?
|
| the lisp has to have some sort of extern linkage reference
| in order to choose the .o file from the a
> I guess another way to phrase my question is what is the difference
> between specifying an object file directly, from as included via
> libspad.a?
the lisp has to have some sort of extern linkage reference
in order to choose the .o file from the archive. clearly there
is nothing in GCL that r
On September 17, 2006 11:17 PM C Y wrote:
>
> Thanks Tim. I added a comment to the RosettaStone page - I can't
> seem to edit the page itself, perhaps because of the large number
> of
> Is anyone else seeing a problem with the formatting of the comments
> on the RosettaStone wiki page or is it
Thanks Tim. I added a comment to the RosettaStone page - I can't seem
to edit the page itself, perhaps because of the large number of wrote:
> > Is the LaTeX source code of this also available somewhere?
>
> src/doc/Rosetta.pamphlet
>
> t
>
>
_
root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > My understanding, from reading src/lib/Makefile.pamphlet, is that
| > sockio-c.o is contained in libspad.a. So why is it specified again
| > in lsp/Makefile.pamphlet when building a fresh lisp image from GCL?
| >
| > Also, is there a reason why cfuns-c.o is
> Is the LaTeX source code of this also available somewhere?
src/doc/Rosetta.pamphlet
t
___
Axiom-developer mailing list
Axiom-developer@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
We've got the Rosetta document up in html form at
http://wiki.axiom-developer.org/RosettaStone
Is the LaTeX source code of this also available somewhere? If so, can
we add a link to it to the wiki page? I suppose in theory it would be
less current but it would be nice to have available. If the
> My understanding, from reading src/lib/Makefile.pamphlet, is that
> sockio-c.o is contained in libspad.a. So why is it specified again
> in lsp/Makefile.pamphlet when building a fresh lisp image from GCL?
>
> Also, is there a reason why cfuns-c.o is not archived in libspad.a?
cfuns-c.o and s
> | I spent the day trying to build axiom on the MAC.
> | GCL builds and generates a lisp image that works.
> | (I'm using the Xcode development environment).
> | Unfortunately if you do a save-system the stored
> | image will NOT work.
>
> What are the symptoms?
frustration, fatigue, lack of...
Tim --
My understanding, from reading src/lib/Makefile.pamphlet, is that
sockio-c.o is contained in libspad.a. So why is it specified again
in lsp/Makefile.pamphlet when building a fresh lisp image from GCL?
Also, is there a reason why cfuns-c.o is not archived in libspad.a?
-- Gaby
__
root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Camm,
|
| I spent the day trying to build axiom on the MAC.
| GCL builds and generates a lisp image that works.
| (I'm using the Xcode development environment).
| Unfortunately if you do a save-system the stored
| image will NOT work.
What are the symptoms?
-
Camm,
I spent the day trying to build axiom on the MAC.
GCL builds and generates a lisp image that works.
(I'm using the Xcode development environment).
Unfortunately if you do a save-system the stored
image will NOT work.
I'm rewriting the Makefiles to handle a pure-lisp
image build.
t
_
Camm,
Following up on my earlier message, is it OK to apply this to
gcl-2.6.8pre CVS? I'm using it in the GCL version present in Axiom
build-improvement branch.
Thanks!
-- Gaby
Index: ChangeLog
===
RCS file: /sources/gcl/gcl/Ch
On September 17, 2006 1:59 PM Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
> ...
> Gaby wrote:
> >
> > yes. My working assumption is that if we had Variable(D: domain)
> > to mean anything, it would be such that operations of D would
> > be *lifted* to Variable(D: domain) and would work as if we had an
> > algebra (in
"Bill Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| > > Funny enough, I tried similar thing and sent a message before
| > > seeing Bill's. That is a natural thing to do if you have a
| > > Universal Algebra background -- e.g. you're used to the 3M's.
|
| Actually the suggestion that the 3M's have a
"Bill Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| I think the paper by Steven Watt referred to in the
| following thread:
|
| http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/axiom-developer/2006-08/msg00525.html
|
| Making Computer Algebra More Symbolic (Invited), Stephen M. Watt,
| pp. 43-49, Pro
Cliff,
On September 17, 2006 2:45 PM you wrote:
>
> Clearly I have some homework to do on this topic, and it's
> important enough that I want to be sure I have the correct
> sources. Looking over the archive links Bill provided (thanks Bill!)
> it looks like papers by Davenport and Fateman are re
Ralf Hemmecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| Looking at it mathematically (and simplified) then all we do is that
| we take a universal algebra D = (A, F) where A is the carrier set and
| F are the functions on it. Variable(D) is maybe a bad name, but all we
| do is that Variable(D) = (A', F
Clearly I have some homework to do on this topic, and it's important
enough that I want to be sure I have the correct sources. Looking over
the archive links Bill provided (thanks Bill!) it looks like papers by
Davenport and Fateman are recommended reading. Are these the specific
papers in questi
On 09/17/2006 04:25 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
Ralf Hemmecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > | > Intuitively I would expect Variable to mean simply "an
| > | > unspecified specific instance of a Domain/Type/what have you"
| > | > with ALL domains being possible - just so long as you specify
| >
On Fri, 15 Sep 2006, Camm Maguire wrote:
| Greetings!
|
| Can we finalize this stat bit please? I'm trying to get 2.6.8 out
Hi Camm,
currently 'make install' fails for GCL-2.6.8 if the utility
makeinfo is missing. I think the installation should be allowed to
complete -- the documentation wi
Ralf Hemmecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > | > Intuitively I would expect Variable to mean simply "an
| > | > unspecified specific instance of a Domain/Type/what have you"
| > | > with ALL domains being possible - just so long as you specify
| > | > the type of the variable, e.g.:
| > | > | > a
Reminder: axiom skype phone conference
When: Monday Sept 18, 1pm EST
If you want to participate in the conference
send you skype id to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The way skype is organized only one person can
host a conference and he has to 'invite' people.
Tim
_
Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However, I seem to remember Ralf telling people that they should never
> ever enter EXPR T in Axiom; so without knowing what you do futher with
> your matrix I can't say the EXPR domain constructor is a good way to go;
> you have to try.
I think that
| > Intuitively I would expect Variable to mean simply "an
| > unspecified specific instance of a Domain/Type/what have you"
| > with ALL domains being possible - just so long as you specify
| > the type of the variable, e.g.:
| >
| > a1 : Variable(Matrix Quaternion Fraction Integer)
| >
|
| Su
25 matches
Mail list logo
