Martin,
I've given the matter much thought and I've decided to agree with you.
Axiom is now a democracy. You, as the leader of the movement and the
person who proposed the structure, are now the person who is in charge.
Silver is now yours to maintain.
I will work exclusively in a branch and, l
Dear Martin,
I have not responded to your proposal yet because it has taken me some
time to consider. But I think now I have settled on my position.
I do not believe that a vote is necessary, in any strong sense of the
term. I would much rather, as William Sit so eloquently wrote on the
Wiki pa
C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (Steve, I do plan to go over your code in more detail, once I get time
> - work has been very time consuming the last few days and that has
> slowed me down :-(. )
Not to worry, the code has changed quite a bit since I sent you that
last copy. When you have the t
--- Stephen Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Cliff, *,
>
> Just for the record, I delved into the pamphlet-as-latex thing head
> first and implemented my own noweb-like tool because I wanted to
> enrich my understanding of the issues.
That's always an excellent reason :-).
> The timing was m
Cliff, *,
Just for the record, I delved into the pamphlet-as-latex thing head
first and implemented my own noweb-like tool because I wanted to
enrich my understanding of the issues. The timing was motivated by
the steadfast insistence by Martin and Ralf that they did not want to
see the latex cha
--- Stephen Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Well, that discussion is tied up with what we want pamphlets to do
> > ;-).
>
> Not really. Even if all we want is functionality equivalent to what
> noweb provides, my objections to using LaTex are still releva
> Greetings!
>
> OK the issue is that you are setting the compiler::fixed-args property
> -- a legacy function signature facility which may have even been
> implemented to support axiom for all that I know. The short fix is to
> stop setting this property and let GCL figure out the signature on
C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > In some ways the discussion has strayed from the original question
> > "is latex the best vehicle for describing pamphlets?". Thanks OK
> > though.
>
> Well, that discussion is tied up with what we want pamphlets to do ;-).
Not really. Even if all we want is
--- Stephen Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Cliff,
>
> In some ways the discussion has strayed from the original question
> "is latex the best vehicle for describing pamphlets?". Thanks OK
> though.
Well, that discussion is tied up with what we want pamphlets to do ;-).
> OK. The inter-f
Camm Maguire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| If 'fixed-args is to be kept, I need to make it compatible with the
| automatic function signature discovery, but the simplest for me would
| be to ignore the property, depending on axiom's needs. It seems
| redundant with declaim anyway. Thought
Cliff,
In some ways the discussion has strayed from the original question "is
latex the best vehicle for describing pamphlets?". Thanks OK though.
C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> > Look at the algebra, for example. Look at the interrelationships. Do
> > you want to write your algebra
Greetings!
OK the issue is that you are setting the compiler::fixed-args property
-- a legacy function signature facility which may have even been
implemented to support axiom for all that I know. The short fix is to
stop setting this property and let GCL figure out the signature on its
own.
I
Groklaw has just put up a page related to trademarks,
both common law and registered:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070717095916179
___
Axiom-developer mailing list
Axiom-developer@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-d
Martin Rubey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Dear Ayal,
|
| Ayal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| > A democracy is not always the best approach.
To some extent, I agree with Ayal -- judging from my own experience
and involvement in some large scale open source projects (eg. GCC).
Though I can al
Dear Ayal,
Ayal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A democracy is not always the best approach.
I only claim that it would be the best for axiom, because of many differing,
and very strong opinions, and because it is at the moment, and probably even in
future, just not necessary to have only one ver
Hi,
As a fellow maintainer of a competing CAS system (Yacas) I have been
following recent discussions on this mailing list with great interest. It
is not unlikely that I might run in to similar problems in the future.
For what it is worth, here are a few thoughts I had.
Democracy in an open-sour
Ondrej has already answered for the emotional side. I try to add a tiny bit on
the rational side:
> Lets try a thought experiment.
> Suppose you propose that Fricas should now be democratic.
I would not suggest that FriCAS should become democratic. I said I would in
fact like to have democrat
17 matches
Mail list logo
