Re: [Axiom-developer] Axiom for Windows

On Tuesday, July 4, 2017 1:36 PM, Tim Daly wrote: > Maxima is an excellent piece of software. I have no > opinion about whether it will fit your needs. From > the changelog it appears that there have been no > changes since 2005: > > https://sourceforge.net/p/maxima/code/ci/master/tree/ChangeLog

Re: [Axiom-developer] solaris

> On Monday, September 15, 2014 1:43 AM, "d...@axiom-developer.org" > wrote: > The browser front end currently allows Axiom notebook-like interaction > (you type an expression and see the result) as well as hyperdoc-style > browsing (only some of the pages have been converted so far). > >

Re: [Axiom-developer] solaris

> On Monday, September 15, 2014 1:43 AM, "d...@axiom-developer.org" > wrote: > > Cliff, > > I'm not sure what you mean by a "minimalist TeX executable". Are > you thinking of producing a TeX in lisp? That would be amazing! That wasn't my thought with ModTeX - there, I just wanted to get a han

Re: [Axiom-developer] cl-typesetting

> On Monday, September 15, 2014 1:57 AM, "d...@axiom-developer.org" > wrote: > > cl-typesetting is cool. I like what he's doing. > > I don't think it can replace latex if only for the simple > reason that every time I need to do something there are > thousands of web pages of help and hundred

Re: [Axiom-developer] solaris

> On Sunday, September 14, 2014 11:26 PM, C Y wrote: > > > > >> On Sunday, September 14, 2014 10:49 PM, > "d...@axiom-developer.org" wrote: > >> > Camm, >> >> GCL is not the problem with a solaris port. >> >>

Re: [Axiom-developer] solaris

> On Sunday, September 14, 2014 10:49 PM, "d...@axiom-developer.org" > wrote: > > Camm, > > GCL is not the problem with a solaris port. > > Solaris does not include texlive support (for free anyway). So Axiom > would have to be adjusted to build without using TeX. While that is > technical

[Axiom-developer] noweb?

It sounds like Axiom has now achieved pure-latex pamphlets? (http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/axiom-developer/2013-04/msg00029.html) If this is the case, does axiom still need to build noweb? Cheers, CY ___ Axiom-developer mailing list Axiom-develop

[Axiom-developer] Axiom, Ubuntu and texlive

Just thought I'd post a quick note for anyone on Ubuntu that is seeing hanging behaviour building Axiom: It looks like the texlive distributed with Ubuntu these days needs \documentclass[dvipdfmx] instead of \documentclass[dvipdfm]: http://tex.stackexchange.com/questions/154502/dvipdfm-def-not-

Re: [Axiom-developer] Literate Programming -- Knuth interview

Tim, That's quite an interesting example!  Is there a license on it?  I can see that being useful in a lot of scenarios as an introduction to the idea of literate programming. Cheers, CY From: daly To: su...@attglobal.net Cc: axiom-Developer Sent: Frid

Re: [Axiom-developer] Embedding Axiom

On Sunday 15 November 2009 23:35:00 Tim Daly wrote: > This is a request for design discussion for those who are interested. > When it is done in this properly embedded fashion you should be able to > (mapcar #'(lambda (f) (integrate f x)) '((sin x) (cos x) ... > or use the Spad surface syntax to

[Axiom-developer] Re: OpenAxiom-1.2.1 released

On Sunday 12 April 2009 09:50:18 Aleksej Saushev wrote: > > > I applaud your desire to use a computer algebra system. > > However, the project goals of Axiom clearly don't meet your needs. > > This is simply delusion. I object several points of Axiom, which proved > to be wrong in practice, and yo

[Axiom-developer] REDUCE open source?

Just saw the note on the Maxima list from David Billinghurst about a sourceforge project for Reduce: http://reduce-algebra.sourceforge.net/ It looks like this may be the (formerly?) commercial REDUCE, based on their history blurb. If so, it's probably worth calling some attention to - if not

Re: [Axiom-developer] Am I posing this solve problem wrong?

--- Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I guess you need to be a little more explicit about the variables: Ah. Thanks Bill. I wonder if this is the desired default behavior? Cheers, CY Be a better

[Axiom-developer] Am I posing this solve problem wrong?

I'm trying to solve for y. In Axiom: (1) -> E1 := x^2*D1^2+(y-y1)^2*C1^2 - C1^2*D1^2 (1) -> 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 (1) C1 y1 - 2C1 y y1 + C1 y + D1 x - C1 D1 Type: Polynomial Integer (2) -> solve(E1=0,y)

[Axiom-developer] Re: [fricas-devel] Re: a meta name for axiom, open.axiom, fricas

--- Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | What about Scratchpad? If I've got the history right all of these > | systems might be considered descendants of Scratchpad, and I don't > | think there is any longer a product called Scratchpad to be > | confused with them? Or perhaps Scratchp

[Axiom-developer] Re: [fricas-devel] a meta name for axiom, open.axiom, fricas

Martin Rubey wrote: >> If you'd like to propose a meta-name that is not Axiom > > Please propose such a name. I cannot. For me, the meta name is Axiom, and > there happens to be a sub-project bearing the same name. But that's my > personal and biased view of things. What about Scratchpad? I

Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: [fricas-devel] Installation directory

--- root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ...[snip]... > >Aldor, for example - unless Tim has plans I'm not aware of Axiom > >itself won't be moving in the direction of using Aldor. > > Sigh. I replied to Bill's email a while ago that Axiom will have > aldor available. I explained at that time that

Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: [fricas-devel] Installation directory

--- Martin Rubey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But they wouldn't! Why would you think that any of your work was > lost when you install axiom after having installed friCAS? I think the concern here is accidentally overwriting an installation of Axiom with FriCAS, for example, or having the wrong

Re: [Axiom-developer] Building silver git tree on Gentoo

I think this is what did it - I'm rebuilding to confirm. CY diff -Naur silver/src/graph/view2d/Makefile.pamphlet silver-compile/src/graph/view2d/Makefile.pamphlet --- silver/src/graph/view2d/Makefile.pamphlet 2007-12-11 23:08:32.0 -0500 +++ silver-compile/src/graph/view2d/Makefile.pamph

Re: [Axiom-developer] newhyper.pamphlet

Tim I'm not seeing this in the silver git repository - is it in there yet or do I need to grab it elsewhere? Thanks, Cliff (sorry I must have missed the "where to get it" part...) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Revision 50 checked in. > Topics->Calculus complete > is now a better font size > >

Re: [Axiom-developer] Building silver git tree on Gentoo

OK, it looks like inserting -lXpm into a couple make files did it - I'm not sure yet however where the "correct" place in the Gentoo makefiles to add that section is. CY Be a better friend, newshound, and

[Axiom-developer] Building silver git tree on Gentoo

Hi all. I just tried building the silver tree on Gentoo,and ran into the following: 32 making /home/cyapp/mathtoplevel/axiomtoplevel/silver-compile/obj/gentoo/graph /view2d/write2d.o from /home/cyapp/mathtoplevel/axiomtoplevel/silver-compile/int /graph/view2d/write2d.c 34 linking /home/cyapp/math

Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: AMS Notices: Open Source Mathematical Software

>> Third, even if the NSF funded SAGE, how would those funds benefit the >> various subprojects like Axiom? Open source is mostly volunteer work >> done in "spare time". While it is amusing to daydream of being paid to >> develop open source computational mathematics on a full time basis, it >> see

[Axiom-developer] Re: [Axiom-legal] Re: Copyright notice Re: pfaffian.input.pamphlet

root wrote: >> I just realised that you are possibly breaking Copyright in your pamphlet. >> See >> > > Ok. I'll withdraw the change and see if I can understand what it takes to > be in compliance. I read the lic

Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: axserver and hyperdoc

--- root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I do have to find the Math1..N fonts for firefox > under linux. Variable sized parens and brackets are > not rendering due to fonts. I don't know if this will be immediately helpful, but the STIX project is projecting a beta font release by the end of Septe

Re: [Axiom-developer] Mailing List Etiquette

OK, I see the confusion. By "original project" I was referring to the first open source Axiom project, not the original IBM effort. Given Tim's original open source project still retains the name Axiom, by default when I refer to Axiom I mean the Axiom open source project. The naming of "Open Ax

Re: [Axiom-developer] Mailing List Etiquette

--- Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I believe "heavy use of Lisp" is a recent addition/invention to the > so-called 'GOALS of the original Axiom system' -- one that is NOT > mentioned in the readme, but that is easily forgotten or pulled out > of tin air. Correction then - the origi

Re: [Axiom-developer] Mailing List Etiquette

--- Ondrej Certik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't know, never happened to me yet. But one thing is what I like > or don't like and another thing is how to spend my time effectively > (i.e. not working on a project, if there is a better alternative). In the case of Axiom (the original project

Re: [Axiom-developer] Mailing List Etiquette

--- Ralf Hemmecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 09/07/2007 01:16 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Bill, > > > >> For building Axiom on less common architectures I strongly > >> recommend the FriCAS or OpenAxiom forks of the Axiom project. > > > > I strongly object to your suggestion that some

[Axiom-developer] Re: Gold numbering scheme

--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Cliff, > > We're not in the advertising business. We're doing long term science. OK, fair enough. > It makes no difference if there are "major" improvements from version > 10.1 to 10.2. Every version features improvements. Well, it will certainly avoid arguments

[Axiom-developer] Re: Gold

--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I'd prefer the binary numbering scheme to reflect the date > of the gold version, so the Gold Sept 2007 version would be >axiom-7.9.0.tgz > (that is, Sept, 2007 == 7.9). This will be unique and clear. It will, but it would break the user convention of major ver

Re: [Axiom-developer] Gold

--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > As part of recovery of the project I am going back to the schedule > of Gold releases every 2 months. Tim, the schedule sounds good. Would you object to a Major.Minor numbering scheme for Gold to make things "distro-friendly?" E.g. Sept 1, 2007: axiom-4.9.0.tar.

Re: [Axiom-developer] A student comment

--- Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/1/07, Alasdair McAndrew wrote: > > As some of you may know, this semester I am using Axiom in a > > cryptography subject. I have asked my students to comment briefly > > on what they like/dislike about it. Some like it, and find it > > "intuitive"

Re: [Axiom-developer] problems compiling openaxiom

--- Pablo De Napoli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > I've just joined axiom-devel, though I've been following the axiom > development for a while. > > I've been trying to compile the different forks (branches?) of Axiom > I've found problems both with OpenAxiom and Fricas, for sake of > cla

Re: [Axiom-developer] A bug in windows Axiom

--- Alfredo Portes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A work in progress pamphlet (very undocumented currently) of the > script can be found here: > http://alfredoportes.com/~alfredo/axiom/winstaller.pamphlet Very nice! Unfortunately I don't have a Windows machine to try the installer on yet. Glad t

Re: [Axiom-developer] Lisp in Small Pieces

--- Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, > > I guess the pieces were'nt small enough. :-) Heh. Or there were too many of them - when you're outselling Harry Potter with a Lisp book you know one of two things - either the AI winter just definitively ended or something's up with the prici

[Axiom-developer] ASDF-Literate v0.1

With many thanks to Steve for his unfailing support, good advice, and endless patience I would like to announce that we have a beta version of ASDF-Literate working - the Another System Definition Facility utility commonly used for easy handling of libraries in modern Lisp systems. There are still

Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: bootstrap Meta/Boot

--- "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't have these in print, but they are both from the Journal Of > Forth Applications Research (JFAR). It used to be in Rochester, NY, > but appears to have found a home on line at > > http://dec.bournemouth.ac.uk/forth/jfar/index.html

Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: bootstrap Meta/Boot

--- Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ralf, > > I agree 100% with you. Removing BOOT *could* be a goal, but I > definitely would choose the SPAD option over LISP any day. In fact as > I understand it and as has been stated by some of the original Axiom > developers on this list, this was ex

Re: [Axiom-developer] bootstrap Meta/Boot

--- Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > However, active proponents of Lisp rewrite have been very busy > replacing readable Boot codes with unreadable Lisp captured from > bootsys. As a case in point, people can admire bookvol5. FWIW, in my case that's not what I mean when I refer to

Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: bootstrap Meta/Boot

--- "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I may have that buried somewhere -- at one point I acquired just > about everything I could on Forth, and I never threw it away. What > was the title/author/date? A couple of other paths: The papers, which I can't find: http://portal.acm.

Re: [Axiom-developer] bootstrap Meta/Boot

--- Ralf Hemmecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Fortunately in the brave new world we seem to inhabit, there is no > > sticking place for your objection. You can create your own branch > > and thus reconstruct Meta in Meta and Boot in Boot. > > And whoever wants to rewrite everything is LISP s

Re: [Axiom-developer] Lisp in Small Pieces

Not at $4 any more. I didn't notice it in time. Arrrgh. CY --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Lisp in Small Pieces, a fantastically well done literate document, > managed to beat out Harrry Potter on Amazon. And it is selling for > $4. > > > Tim > > > > > > __

Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: bootstrap Meta/Boot

--- "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, considering the long history of Axiom and its predecessors, > that's not surprising. But once you *have* Axiom capable of compiling > itself, do you really need the underlying scaffolding, or can you > take it down and just use the bu

Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: bootstrap Meta/Boot

--- Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Apparently these problems can be solved but only with a radically > different build approach than is used now in Axiom, as demonstrated > by the Axiom fork project. Eventually, my understanding is we will head in a similar direction. > > Such a trend le

Re: [Axiom-developer] concatenate and bit-vector

--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Steve, > > In order to move from MacLisp to VMLisp and then to pre-common lisp > and then to common lisp (and now to ansi) one of two possible > approaches can be taken. The first approach is to emulate the > semantics of the original system in the new system. The

Re: [Axiom-developer] Axiom and streams

--- Stephen Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think they take different approaches, where both have advantages > and disadvantages in certain applications. For example, I think > Simple streams have a good interface for dealing with common byte- > based operations like reading files, compress

Re: [Axiom-developer] Axiom and streams

--- Stephen Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I will start on getting some preliminary work done. Any more > questions/thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Not a particularly useful question, but I am curious - how serious is the collision conceptually between Gray Streams and Simple Stream

Re: [Axiom-developer] Axiom and streams

--- Stephen Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A large drawback is that neither, to my knowledge, have been > implemented atop GCL. I am seriously considering writing an > implementation. I have a personal preference for using Simple > Streams as I believe it mostly succeeded in addressing is

Re: [Axiom-developer] Axiom meeting at ISSAC

--- Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have not seen anyone advocating to leave issues hanging. So long as we leave the question of using or not using Aldor in Axiom undecided as a project, it is hanging. > Active people from both community will be attending the Aldor > work

Re: [Axiom-developer] Axiom meeting at ISSAC

--- Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > No amount of emails or speculations to this list will have any > impact. Not on Aldor, no. My PRIMARY concern is what impact Aldor will have on the Axiom project, and that CAN be delt with on this list - it must be. >From my standpoint, the Ald

Re: [Axiom-developer] Axiom meeting at ISSAC

--- Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 1 Aug 2007, C Y wrote: > > | Whatever the intent may be, the legal text of the license itself is > | what will ultimately govern what can and cannot be done, within the > | limits of the law. That is why I foc

Re: [Axiom-developer] Axiom meeting at ISSAC

--- Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > [...] > > | If Axiom depended on Aldor, it could not be used for such an > | undertaking. > > Nobody prevents you from building an Aldor compiler, written in Lisp &

Re: [Axiom-developer] Axiom meeting at ISSAC

--- Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > [...] > > | If I understand correctly the terms of > | this license, any commercial activity around the code base can be > | undertaken ONLY by those with the exclusive right

Re: [Axiom-developer] Axiom meeting at ISSAC

--- Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Thus, open Aldor ideally could make significant strides which > > > would be available to the commercial version, but the latter > > > could "embrace and extend" the former, effectively co-opting this > > > work and potentially draining open Aldor o

Re: [Axiom-developer] Axiom meeting at ISSAC

--- Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 7/31/07, C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Fair enough if we get into the nitty gritty, but one question here > > - is there anyone who is interested in usi

Re: [Axiom-developer] Axiom meeting at ISSAC

--- Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://www.aldor.org/AldorPublicLicense2_0.html > > is a modified BSD-style license which contains a "for non-commerical > use only clause" making it incompatible with GPL. This potentially > has an impact on the possibility of using and distributing Ald

Re: [Axiom-developer] goals and direction, axiom vs fricas

-- Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jocelyn Guidry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | Gaby, > | > | Would the Fricas project better suit your needs and vision for an > | open source CAS? If not, why? > > Borrowing a metaphor from a friend, it is like trying to get five > cars to C

Re: [Axiom-developer] literate programming and Claerbout's Insight

--- Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 29 Jul 2007, C Y wrote: > > [...] > > | > Currently, Axiom isn't. But if its proponents are convinced that > | > they do should their best to chase away "novices", then the > system is &

Re: [Axiom-developer] literate programming and Claerbout's Insight

--- Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > for many, that is not a practical difference -- since they are > already using commercial systems. For many, yes. If functionality is all that is important and the budget is there, commercial systems are the current obvious choice - that's why t

Re: [Axiom-developer] literate programming and Claerbout's Insight

--- Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I do not agree that open source is a completely "different ballgame". > As Tim has explained even when Axiom was a research project at IBM is > was quite freely given out to those researchers who had a real > interest in it. Well, I can't speak for othe

Re: [Axiom-developer] literate programming and Claerbout's Insight

--- Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 29 Jul 2007, C Y wrote: > > | Sure, as a commercial product. Open source is a different > | ballgame; > > What are the concrete differences? For one thing, there is no legal problem with fixing problems yours

Re: [Axiom-developer] literate programming and Claerbout's Insight

--- Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 29 Jul 2007, C Y wrote: > > | Um. I can understand the lack of seamless integration, but why > | would Axiom's history cause a negative reaction? > > Well, this is something one should oneself ask direct

Re: [Axiom-developer] literate programming and Claerbout's Insight

--- Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > [...] > > | Axiom has the opportunity to be the base of computational > mathematics. > > When it manages to meet the needs of the working computational > mathematicians. It cannot do that by building self-made ghe

Re: [Axiom-developer] Project directions

--- Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think this is not an accurate description of the situation since > Boot is written in Lisp and it is *part* of Axiom. In other words no > matter what we do, Axiom is written in Lisp. Period. Currently, true. As we have discussed earlier, Lisp is regar

[Axiom-developer] Project directions

I'll make one more stab at asking my question, using a more concrete illustration this time. Gaby's slides reminded me of the ongoing Lisp vs. Boot situation we have in the Axiom project - there are two camps both firmly committed to Lisp or Boot respectively. Unlike the question of literate prog

Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: Fricas

--- Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It strikes that people are trying hard to speculate on Fricas goals > and methods, much more than the originator of the Fricas project :-) Point - in fact, a very good point. Waldek isn't joining this fray so far, but I'll quote from http://www.m

Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: Fricas

> If for whatever reason we can't work together with Waldek in the > Axiom project then at least Axiom still has access to his skills > and the work of some other people through FriCAS. It is not the ideal > situation but it is not a net loss. (I think at least Clifford Yapp > agrees with me on t

[Axiom-developer] Re: Fricas

--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > To suggest that this is "Tim's project" and that I set all the goals > is to rewrite history in a very negative way. It minimizes the > efforts and contributions of a large number of people, all named (or > intended to be named) in the list of Axiom credits. My apol

Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: Fricas

--- Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Right now we are lucky if we can even find > 5 out out of the nearly 100 subscribers in the axiom-devel mailing > list who are willing to make a public statement about any of issues > that have been considered for vote-taking here recently. I think peop

Re: [Axiom-developer] Axiom meeting

--- Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 7/24/07, C Y wrote: > > Bill, I won't be at ISSAC unfortunately - would it be possible to > > arrange a video or even an audio recording of the meeting? > > > > I wish I could be there - I think this is a

Re: [Axiom-developer] Axiom meeting

Bill, I won't be at ISSAC unfortunately - would it be possible to arrange a video or even an audio recording of the meeting? I wish I could be there - I think this is a VERY good idea. Cheers, CY Be a

Re: [Axiom-developer] Pamphlet files and Axiom

--- Stephen Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > And you think such events would be sufficiently common to merit > > going away from them as tags for references? > > Absolutely. If I design a piece of software I consider i

Re: [Axiom-developer] Pamphlet files and Axiom

--- Stephen Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But do the sequences << followed by >> occur on the same line in > > source code often? That is the only possibility that would require > > an escape. > > Yes. Particularly in C and C++ where these sequences are used for > logical shifts. And y

Re: [Axiom-developer] Pamphlet files and Axiom

--- C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > OK. My design approach would have been to keep references in > documentation chunks in LaTeX and source code, but I'll wait and see > what your approach is. sorry - meant to say "My design approach would have been to keep re

Re: [Axiom-developer] Pamphlet format discussion

--- Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Certainly I don't want to spend my time working on this, but I was > thinking more of people like Norman Ramsey and other people who > already use noweb. Why not embrace the concept of co-operating with > other open source projects instead of re-inventin

Re: [Axiom-developer] Pamphlet files and Axiom

--- Stephen Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It appears quite often in Aldor, where it is an operator. There is > no reason to expect that it will not become one in Spad too. But do the sequences << followed by >> occur on the same line in source code often? That is the only possibility tha

Re: [Axiom-developer] Pamphlet format discussion

--- Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 21 Jul 2007 03:42:15 -0500, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > > The objection as, I understand it, is against having the common toy > > (Axiom) move to duplicating functionalities (already provided by > > external tools) and having to maintain the source code

[Axiom-developer] Re: Pamphlet format discussion

--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Cliff, Andrey, Steve, > > I hope to demonstrate the ability to extract a small, well defined > portion of a pamphlet file in response to an axiom help command > using the lisp-level weave. Thus I'd like to be able to say > > )help DHMATRIX )examples > > which i

Re: [Axiom-developer] Pamphlet files and Axiom

--- Stephen Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Cliff, > > I think you are making some very important points. Thanks. I'm trying my best to keep the "big picture" in mind here, despite my burning desire to move on to things other than pamphlet format ;-). &g

[Axiom-developer] Pamphlet files and Axiom

As near as I can tell, the question about tools used is not really the important one for Axiom at this time. Choosing tools to use is easily handled at build time. Of more importance is the details of how to specify a chunk. Axiom+Noweb currently uses the syntax <>= @ This has the merit of b

Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: Pamphlets and LaTex

--- Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Oh yes. If you google for "GCC" and "compile-time performance", you > should have longish threads. I know of at least one coorporate who > takes that issue very seriously (long before it became an issue for > the whole community) and was willing

Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: Pamphlets and LaTex

--- Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > | Gaby, you originally replied that you thought the speed was > important: > | > http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/axiom-developer/2007-02/msg00154.html > | I would appre

Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: Pamphlets and LaTex

--- 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

Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: Pamphlets and LaTex

--- 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

Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: Pamphlets and LaTex

--- 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

Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: Pamphlets and LaTex

Stephen Wilson wrote: > C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> --- Stephen Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> What if \chunk{foo} resulted in referencing the Foo domain defined in >>> another file? >> I personally didn't consider

Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: Pamphlets and LaTex

--- Stephen Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What if \chunk{foo} resulted in referencing the Foo domain defined in > another file? I personally didn't consider it desirable to reference chunks outside of a particular file - it makes it that much harder to understand. If the idea is to tangle

Re: [Axiom-developer] Re: Pamphlets and LaTex

I'll confess I'm a bit confused, but that may be my fault. Questions: 1) How does going from noweb to LaTeX syntax change anything, besides what needs to be typed to ID a chunk? I don't know about noweb, but the whole point of wrapping the cl-web state machine in macros was to be able to handle

Re: [Axiom-developer] Axiom, FriCAS, forks and teeth

--- Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > As I understand it, bookvol5 is nowhere near completion. What is > > your take on dhmatrix? As I understand it that file is closer to a > > "proper" literate document. Or, for that matter, what about > > cl-web? > > I think dhmatrix as a literate d

Re: [Axiom-developer] Axiom, FriCAS, forks and teeth

Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > Doug Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > [...] > > | Now look at the undocumented or poorly documented code and try changing it! > | I think Tim's comments of writing for the humans that will have to > | change- improve it, is fundamental. I gust have to look at some

Re: [Axiom-developer] Axiom, FriCAS, forks and teeth

Waldek Hebisch wrote: > So while old algorithm > remains correct, a superior one may be invented and replace > the old. Sure. And I would agree with that. I was thinking more along the lines of the build system, the interpreter, client-server communication, etc. I would expect the mathematics

Re: [Axiom-developer] Axiom, FriCAS, forks and teeth

--- Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 7/11/07, C Y wrote: > > OK. So then, how DO we work with mathematics? (I don't expect an > > answer - but it's still a reasonable question, unless one wants to > > throw up one's hands. A universal treatm

Re: [Axiom-developer] Axiom, FriCAS, forks and teeth

--- Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Multicore are no longer supercomputers myths you would find in > highly financed National Labs. They are the reality today. Sure. > If you order a machine from Dell, the probability that you > get a multicore is very high. How do you we wisel

Re: [Axiom-developer] Axiom, FriCAS, forks and teeth

--- Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would say that this goal is certainly very disconnected from > reality. I think comparing computer typesetting (TeX) to computer > algebra (in general) is rather like comparing arithmetic to > mathematics (in general). We know pretty well how to do type

Re: [Axiom-developer] Axiom, FriCAS, forks and teeth

--- Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I believe that the core of the system would have to change, evolved, > rewritten, rethinked. > The future -- at least the near future -- is in parallel/distributed > computations with multicores expected to grow exponentially. We > will have to r

Re: [Axiom-developer] Axiom, FriCAS, forks and teeth

--- Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The notion that Axiom would need just to be written once and never > rewritten again is -- I'm afraid -- completely deconnected from > reality, and reflects an amateurish approach to software that > saddens me. This may indeed be amateurish, but a

Re: [Axiom-developer] Axiom, FriCAS, forks and teeth

Ralf Hemmecke wrote: > On 07/10/2007 04:22 AM, Bill Page wrote: >> On 7/9/07, C Y wrote: >>> ... Literate programming is not a mainstream methodology (in my opinion) >>> because few developers are willing to accept the long lead times and >>> hard >>>

Re: [Axiom-developer] Axiom, FriCAS, forks and teeth

Bill Page wrote: > On 7/9/07, C Y wrote: >> ... Literate programming is not a mainstream methodology (in my opinion) >> because few developers are willing to accept the long lead times and hard >> work of researching the necessary background to make a good literate >>

Re: [Axiom-developer] Axiom, FriCAS, forks and teeth

Bill Page wrote: > Only one Axiom developer (Martin Rubey) has said publicly that he > would probably quite the Axiom project but I am optimistic that in > fact he will continue his interest in Axiom one way or the other. I do > not see any more division now between the Axiom project and the FirCA

  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   >