Steve,
I agree that we need a weave function in order to enable possible
extensions of functionality, and for integration with Axiom as a whole.
We differ in the implementation question of that weave function.
Tim
___
Axiom-developer mailing list
A
On 7/20/07, Franz Lehner wrote:
here is an algebra question for a change.
I need a version of MonoidRing for MonoidWithZero.
That is, the monoid has a "zero" element which also becomes the zero
element of its monoid ring and thus needs special treatment.
For this I need (so I think) both a Categ
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Steve,
>
> So the statement of your concern is:
>
> We need a weave function in order to enable possible extensions of
> functionality, and for integration with Axiom as a whole.
Yes. What do you think?
Steve
___
Axi
On 7/21/07, Tim Daly wrote:
Is a fair statement of your position:
The status quo use of noweb is entirely adequate.
Yes. I think it is entirely adequate for the use of literate
programming as it exists now in Axiom. No significant improvement can
be made by incremental changes to this approa
Bill,
Is a fair statement of your position:
The status quo use of noweb is entirely adequate.
Tim
___
Axiom-developer mailing list
Axiom-developer@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
On 7/12/07, yalcin oksuz wrote:
I am trying to use axiom in my academic study, but I
can't get it run properly. The problem is when I try
to define a function it gives error, for example
(2) -> f(n|n<=0)==-n
Type: Void
(3) -> f(3)
Compiling function f with type PositiveInteger -
Andrey,
Is a fair statement of your position:
Latex is sufficient to handle all current requirements,
thus removing the need for noweb and its syntax.
Tim
___
Axiom-developer mailing list
Axiom-developer@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/
Steve,
So the statement of your concern is:
We need a weave function in order to enable possible extensions of
functionality, and for integration with Axiom as a whole.
Tim
___
Axiom-developer mailing list
Axiom-developer@nongnu.org
http://lists.no
Epilog: I must be writing this after smoking ... . I have
put this away in my draft folder for a few days because I
know little about databases. Encouraged by Stephen's
prompt, I decide finally to submit it for whatever it is not
worth. I suppose I could have rephrased things in question
form, giv
On 21 Jul 2007 01:46:32 -0400, Stephen Wilson wrote:
"Andrey G. Grozin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> But in the majority of cases, weaving will by just the
> identity transformation. I think this is a Good Thing - saving build
> time and the necessity to learn one more syntax.
Every lite
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Steve,
>
> Another try: Would a correct summary of your concern be:
>
> We need to provide a weave function in order to enable possible future
> pamphlet format extensions.
Close :) I would say that we need a weave function in order to enable
possible extensions of
On 7/19/07, Alasdair McAndrew wrote:
I have been watching the various kerfuffles for a while, staying
mostly quiet myself, seeing as I know nothing about open-source
development. But I have been doing some research, and have come
across this useful resource:
"Producing Open Source Software" by
"Andrey G. Grozin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> An additional advantage is that in the simplest case (which
> means 100% of cases now, but may decrease to 99% in the future) we can
> directly run LaTeX on pamphlet files, thus saving build time.
You might save one or two seconds on a file 20
Steve,
Another try: Would a correct summary of your concern be:
We need to provide a weave function in order to enable possible future
pamphlet format extensions.
Tim
___
Axiom-developer mailing list
Axiom-developer@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.o
"Andrey G. Grozin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> I'll have a look how \begin{verbatim} ... \end{verbatim} is handled in
> auctex. I am sure this can be generalized in such a way that chunks
> written in some programming language will be syntax-highlighted by an
> appropriate mode.
Take a lo
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007, Stephen Wilson wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Would a correct summary of your concern be:
Axiom pamphlet format should not be restricted to latex syntax?
No, I dont think so. The syntax does not bother me in any way.
I cannot see how we can get past the the need for a
Tim,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Stephen,
>
> Would a correct summary of your concern be:
> Axiom pamphlet format should not be restricted to latex syntax?
No, I dont think so. The syntax does not bother me in any way.
I cannot see how we can get past the the need for a weave stage in
general
Hello
I am trying to use axiom in my academic study, but I
can't get it run properly. The problem is when I try
to define a function it gives error, for example
(2) -> f(n|n<=0)==-n
Type: Void
(3) -> f(3)
Compiling function f w
Stephen,
Would a correct summary of your concern be:
Axiom pamphlet format should not be restricted to latex syntax?
Tim
___
Axiom-developer mailing list
Axiom-developer@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
Scott!!!
Actually I have no opinion about how the votes should be counted, what
the quorum rules are, nor who should be allowed to vote, nor anything
else related to "the process". I plan to code and contribute by
posting patches. It's fine if they get voted down.
You designed and authored fair p
Hello,
here is an algebra question for a change.
I need a version of MonoidRing for MonoidWithZero.
That is, the monoid has a "zero" element which also becomes the zero
element of its monoid ring and thus needs special treatment.
For this I need (so I think) both a Category MonoidWithZero, which
Waldek Hebisch wrote:
> Well, if you look just at types factor can return anything. However,
> we have:
>
> factor : P -> Factored P
> ++ factor(p) factors the multivariate polynomial p over its coefficient
> ++ domain
> The ++ comment does not mention possibility of
Stephen Wilson wrote:
> Is it common enough to encounter integral domains which are not UFD's
> yet admit a computable extension to a field?
>
Well, naive users probably use only things like Integer,
Expression Integer and polynomials over them -- given that they
will probably never hit an integra
Waldek Hebisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Practically, when working with polynomils we may want to ignore
> problems due to coefficient ring, that is consider degree 0 factors
> as trivial. But it is still not clear if we can do square free
> decomposition (without for example extending coeffic
William Sit wrote:
> The domain Factored R does not promise full factorization. Indeed, it only
> promise to keep the elements of R in factored form, and a factor has a flag,
> including "nil", "sqfr", "irred" or "prime". So returning a square free form
> is
> not a bug.
>
Well, if you look just
The domain Factored R does not promise full factorization. Indeed, it only
promise to keep the elements of R in factored form, and a factor has a flag,
including "nil", "sqfr", "irred" or "prime". So returning a square free form is
not a bug.
The MultivariateSquareFree package has a squareFree ope
26 matches
Mail list logo
