Martin Rubey wrote:
> I have used Aldor, SPAD, the Aldor interpreter and the axiom interpreter quite
> intensively, and found the combination Aldor + axiom interpreter formidable.
>
> What I found most impressive is that the axiom interpreter is designed well
> enough to work seamlessly with new p
I do not know yet what Bnatural is. But if the axiom interpreter does not
provide automatic coercions and type guessing, you might as well throw it
away. As Ralf already pointed out, no matter what language you use for
scripting - be it Bnatural (whatever that is) or the current axiom scripting
l
On 08/14/2007 11:10 PM, Bill Page wrote:
On 8/14/07, William Sit wrote:
...
For me, translating Spad code accepted by the Axiom interpreter into Spad code
accepted by the compiler is a pain. Either require explicit coercions and calls
in
both the compiler and interpreter, or provide the SAME ve
On 8/14/07, William Sit wrote:
> ...
> For me, translating Spad code accepted by the Axiom interpreter into Spad code
> accepted by the compiler is a pain. Either require explicit coercions and
> calls in
> both the compiler and interpreter, or provide the SAME verifiable/selectable
> assistance i
Martin Rubey wrote:
> My personal preference is:
>
> * no automatic coercion in the compiler
In principle, I agree with this. The source of library code should be
unambiguous
(in addition to well-documented). In practice, it would be nice if there is
some
help, such as spitting out possible co
49(6131)39-26407
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of Ralf Hemmecke
> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2007 4:55 PM
> To: Gabriel Dos Reis
> Cc: axiom-developer@nongnu.org
> Subject: Re: [Aldor-l] [Axiom-developer
