> Subject: Re: [Axiom-developer] Axiom meeting at ISSAC
| >
| > (It would be interesting to know why the new compiler was
| > disconnected when
| > Axiom was made open source).
|
| As far as I know, the ``new compiler'' has been abandoned
| around 1990. I think, sources fro
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of Gabriel Dos Reis
> Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 4:41 AM
> To: Bill Page
> Cc: axiom-developer@nongnu.org
> Subject: Re: [Axiom-developer] Axiom meeting at ISSAC
>
&g
On Thu, 2 Aug 2007, Bill Page wrote:
| > It accepts one AST, not two.
|
| Do you mean that only one of the two existing parsers can be used with SPAD?
Both parsers are used. The new parser is used by the interpreter, and the pld
parser is used by the old compiler. It is also possible to have t
Perviously Stephen Wilson wrote:
| There is also the question of being able to provide the compiler
| components in the form of a library which can be used by other aspects
| Axiom. For example, one would be able to use the new parser and
| (forthcoming) type checker to support an IDE.
Previ
Hi Ralf,
The idea of exploring the use of continuations came about as a result
of considering that there is high probability it could be used at the
algebra level to implement provisos in a natural way.
It was further motivated by the possibility of representing SPAD
programs in Continuation Pass
Hi Stephen,
Another example is Aldors generators. It is planned that these will
be supported in the new SPAD as a special case of continuations.
Thus, generators in SPAD will become an algebra item, not a builtin.
Could you demonstrate some SPAD-code-to-be which uses continuations and
solves
On Wed, 1 Aug 2007, Stephen Wilson wrote:
| Unfortunately, I read meaning into your initial comments about the
| parser work which you may not have intended. I apologize for allowing
| a debate to ensue which took a tone I would have much rather avoided.
Apologies accepted.
Let's move on techn
Gaby,
I am frustrated with the current environment in the Axiom community.
It is a subjective opinion of mine that some comments you make are
intended to be abrasive more than informative. I do try to look past
this personal impression, and to seek opportunities for compromise and
understanding.
On Thu, 2 Aug 2007, Ondrej Certik wrote:
| > | So it cannot go to the Debian main distribution, and that of course is
| > | a major problem, at least for me.
| >
| > The linux distribution I've been for a decade now has a button that
| > let me install "non-open source" software of highly practica
On Wed, 1 Aug 2007, Stephen Wilson wrote:
| > | The system is not extensible or flexible by any rational
| > | measurement.
| >
| > I suspect it is more accurate to say:
| >
| > The system is not extensible or flexible by any Stephen Wilson's
| > measurement.
| >
| > Care should be exerci
On Wed, 1 Aug 2007, Stephen Wilson wrote:
| If you dont understand the issues, thats your problem.
No, I have no problem. You have a problem.
-- Gaby
___
Axiom-developer mailing list
Axiom-developer@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailm
On Wed, 1 Aug 2007, Stephen Wilson wrote:
| Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| > (iii) of course, the answer is yes. As I mentioned earlier, there are two
| > parser in Axiom, an old and a new. You're looking at the old compiler.
|
| Of course I am looking at the old compiler
> | So it cannot go to the Debian main distribution, and that of course is
> | a major problem, at least for me.
>
> The linux distribution I've been for a decade now has a button that
> let me install "non-open source" software of highly practical value to me.
The technical thing is not a problem
Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (iii) of course, the answer is yes. As I mentioned earlier, there are two
> parser in Axiom, an old and a new. You're looking at the old compiler.
Of course I am looking at the old compiler, it is the only compiler.
It accepts one AST, not two.
On Wed, 1 Aug 2007, Stephen Wilson wrote:
| Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > (1) Which, of course, are untrue.
You asked the following questions:
(i) Can it incrementally parse input as the user is typing, thus
making it a usable component in an IDE?
(ii) Is the
Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> (1) Which, of course, are untrue.
The SPAD parser/lexer is line oriented, which means it does not
incrementally parse user input by design.
The SPAD parser drops column information after the lexical stage (see
PARSE-NewExpr).
The AST is not docume
On Wed, 1 Aug 2007, C Y wrote:
| > Active people from both community will be attending the Aldor
| > workshop. That is an excellent opportunity to further the handling
| > of pressing issues, directions, etc. I would have thought interested
| > people would be very willing to take on the opportu
--- 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
On Wed, 1 Aug 2007, Stephen Wilson wrote:
| OK! You caught me!
I did not mean too. Oh well, ainsi va la vie.
[...]
| But for the record, the answers to my original questions are no, no,
| no, and no.
(1) Which, of course, are untrue.
(2) And, as expected, your questions were rhetorical.
--
Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 1 Aug 2007, Stephen Wilson wrote:
>
> | Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | > Excellent. For some reasons, I was under the impression that you looked
> | > at the code before starting your new compiler.
> |
> | Speculation?
>
On Wed, 1 Aug 2007, Stephen Wilson wrote:
| Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > Excellent. For some reasons, I was under the impression that you looked
| > at the code before starting your new compiler.
|
| Speculation?
I did not speculate. That is why I said if you read the code,
Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Excellent. For some reasons, I was under the impression that you looked
> at the code before starting your new compiler.
Speculation?
Steve
___
Axiom-developer mailing list
Axiom-developer@nongnu.org
ht
On Wed, 1 Aug 2007, Stephen Wilson wrote:
| Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > You can answer all those questions by looking at the source code.
|
| I have looked at the source code.
Excellent. For some reasons, I was under the impression that you looked
at the code before startin
Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You can answer all those questions by looking at the source code.
I have looked at the source code. There is a difference in terms of
functionality and applicability which the new parser is designed to
accommodate and which the old parsers are not.
On Wed, 1 Aug 2007, C Y wrote:
| From my standpoint, the Aldor issue is now closed - they have chosen an
| incompatible license (which is their right, no problem) and we can now
| proceed to improve/redo the existing one without fear that the work is
| unnecessary. Resolution either way is better
--- 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
On Wed, 1 Aug 2007, Stephen Wilson wrote:
| Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| > Stephen Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >
| > [...]
| >
| > | There is also the question of being able to provide the compiler
| > | components in the form of a library which can be used by other
Stephen Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Stephen Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > | There is also the question of being able to provide the compiler
> > | components in the form of a library which can be used by othe
On Wed, 1 Aug 2007, C Y wrote:
| --- 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.
Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Stephen Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> | There is also the question of being able to provide the compiler
> | components in the form of a library which can be used by other aspects
> | Axiom. For example, one would be able to use
--- 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 focus on the text of the licens
Stephen Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| There is also the question of being able to provide the compiler
| components in the form of a library which can be used by other aspects
| Axiom. For example, one would be able to use the new parser and
| (forthcoming) type checker to support a
Didier,
The idea of improving the current Axiom compiler is itself not new
(Aldor is an example), but this particular effort is only a few months
old. Consequently, it is not well developed at this point. In
concrete terms, we have a new parser which can handle a good subset
(say 90%) of the cur
C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| So you don't agree with Tim's analysis here?
| http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/axiom-developer/2007-07/msg00147.html
|
| I suppose there's no reason not to ask NAG, but clearly they aren't
| selling Axiom any longer and their commercial trademark HAS
On Wed, 1 Aug 2007, Stephen Wilson wrote:
| Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > CY wrote:
| > | Indeed, Steve's new compiler may end up looking like that - we'll see.
| > | If Aldor and the new compiler are both able to compile the Axiom
| > | Algebra that's the best case scenario.
|
Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | Indeed, Steve's new compiler may end up looking like that - we'll see.
> | If Aldor and the new compiler are both able to compile the Axiom
> | Algebra that's the best case scenario.
>
> I think Aldor.org would not mind a second implementation -- a
(Sorry, meant to send this to the whole list)
-- Forwarded message --
From: didier deshommes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 1 août 2007 11:53
Subject: Re: [Axiom-developer] Axiom meeting at ISSAC
To: Stephen Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
31 Jul 2007 21:18:26 -0400, St
On Wed, 1 Aug 2007, C Y wrote:
|
| --- 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
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 focus on the text of the license
| itself - intent lasts only as long as the individuals do
--- 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
> for example.
Indeed, Steve's new compile
--- 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 rights to do so.
>
> We can spend lot of
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 rights to do so.
We can spend lot of time speculating; I would have thoug
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
for example.
-- Gaby
___
Axiom-developer mailing list
Axiom-de
"Ondrej Certik" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| So it cannot go to the Debian main distribution, and that of course is
| a major problem, at least for me.
The linux distribution I've been for a decade now has a button that
let me install "non-open source" software of highly practical value t
C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| That's probably a moot point, at least at the present time - why would
| anyone want to fork Aldor?
Why would anyone want to fork Axiom?
| My opinion is that the non-commercial restriction is a no-go - I would
| prefer to work with Steven on his new langu
--- 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
On 7/31/07, C Y wrote:
> --- Bill Page wrote:
> ...
> >
> > I dont know anything about Intellectual property laws in the US but
> > isnt "Axiom" too common a word to qualify as a trademark?
>
> The fact that NAG DID have it registered as a trademark when it was a
> commercial product would seem to
On 31 Jul 2007 22:24:49 -0400, Stephen Wilson wrote:
> Camm Maguire writes:
> ...
> > 2) The only rationale for a non-commercial use clause that I can see
> >is to keep open the possibility of a controlled separate licensing
> >to particular entites for commercial use.
The intention of NAG
Camm Maguire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Greetings! AFAICT:
>
> 1) You can build axiom atop a stripped down version of GCL under an
>LGPL license, removing the conflict. It could still never get into
>Debian.
>
> 2) The only rationale for a non-commercial use clause that I can see
>
Greetings! AFAICT:
1) You can build axiom atop a stripped down version of GCL under an
LGPL license, removing the conflict. It could still never get into
Debian.
2) The only rationale for a non-commercial use clause that I can see
is to keep open the possibility of a controlled separat
"didier deshommes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > If not, I say we forget about Aldor (and maybe even build
> > something better). It seems to me that one year from now, we will
> > still be talking about this and not much progress will have been
> > made.
FYI, this is already being seriously pu
-- Forwarded message --
From: Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 31 juil. 2007 18:00
Subject: Re: [Axiom-developer] Axiom meeting at ISSAC
To: didier deshommes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 7/31/07, didier deshommes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
> How much o
On 7/31/07, C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
> > The problem as I see it is lack of compatibility with GPL. According to
> > Stephen this is deliiberate on the part of NAG. Apparently they
> > object to the "viral" natue of GPL.
>
> Erm. That's very
--- 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 using Aldor given this
> > non-commercial clause?
> Certainly there are since there are some people using Aldor now and
> none of these would qualify as commercial as fas as I know.
>
> Can you suggest a credible commercial use? Do you know of any
> commercial use of Axiom? I dont think this is really the issue. The
> problem as I see it is lack o
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 using Aldor given this non-commercial
> clause?
>
Certainly there are since there are some people us
--- 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
http://wiki.axiom-developer.org/AxiomPresentAndFuture
took place on Monday July 30 as planned. There was however very little
discussion about Axiom. :-( In attendance where Barry Trager, Steven
Watt, Emil Volcheck, Gaby Dos Reis, Bill Page plus a few other people
from the ISSAC conference that I d
58 matches
Mail list logo
