Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Tim --
|
| The SBCL compiler does not like the definition of B-MDEF in def.lisp:
|
| (defun B-MDEF (FORM SIGNATURE $BODY)
| (declare (ignore SIGNATURE))
| (let* ($OpAssoc
|($op (first form))
|(argl (cdr form))
|(GARGL (
Tim --
The SBCL compiler does not like the definition of B-MDEF in def.lisp:
(defun B-MDEF (FORM SIGNATURE $BODY)
(declare (ignore SIGNATURE))
(let* ($OpAssoc
($op (first form))
(argl (cdr form))
(GARGL (MAPCAR '(LAMBDA (X) (GENSYM)) ARGL))
($BODY (SUBLI
On Mon, 5 Jun 2006, Martin Rubey wrote:
| Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| > On Mon, 5 Jun 2006, Martin Rubey wrote:
| >
| > | Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > |
| > | > Also, I have been looking for the a formal grammar description of SPAD.
| > | > Where can I find
Hello,On 6/5/06, Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jun 2006, Martin Rubey wrote:| Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:|| > Also, I have been looking for the a formal grammar description of SPAD.
| > Where can I find it? The AXIOM book seems silent about it|| Forget
Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, 5 Jun 2006, Martin Rubey wrote:
>
> | Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> |
> | > Also, I have been looking for the a formal grammar description of SPAD.
> | > Where can I find it? The AXIOM book seems silent about it
> |
> |
On Mon, 5 Jun 2006, Martin Rubey wrote:
| Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| > Also, I have been looking for the a formal grammar description of SPAD.
| > Where can I find it? The AXIOM book seems silent about it
|
| Forget about SPAD, go for Aldor.
The source code of the Aldor
Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Also, I have been looking for the a formal grammar description of SPAD.
> Where can I find it? The AXIOM book seems silent about it
Forget about SPAD, go for Aldor. The formal description of aldor starts on page
239 (Chapter 22) of the Aldor Use
root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| axiom is made of of many layers, and the interface between the parser
| and the rest of the system occurs at pf2sex. (parse form to s-expression).
|
| one of the tasks i'm working on is reverse engineering the pf2sex interface.
| once i figure out the various da
axiom is made of of many layers, and the interface between the parser
and the rest of the system occurs at pf2sex. (parse form to s-expression).
one of the tasks i'm working on is reverse engineering the pf2sex interface.
once i figure out the various data structures and their associated methods
s
On March 23, 2006 10:14 AM C Y asked:
> ...
> Alright, it's now imperative - we MUST free Aldor somehow!
> If it can resolve/remove the old BOOT vs. Lisp code debate,
> clearly there is nothing it can't do!
I think that was always the intent of the design of Axiom/XL
(aka. Aldor). ;)
>
> > > No
> Apparently Tim is not so convinced of the future of Aldor. :(
I'm not? News to me. --Tim
___
Axiom-developer mailing list
Axiom-developer@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
ok, lets get the confusion out of the way before this gets too far along...
The "stack" of languages looks like:
spad -- an algebra language using types
spad compiler -- defines the algebra language and types
boot -- a non-parenthesized common lisp which is untyped
common
"Page, Bill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| In this context I would not call it vague or hand waving.
| They are simply referring to the behavior of the Axiom
| interpreter as it is now defined. Unfortunately I am not
| able to point you to any clear and complete system-level
| documentation
Gaby,
On Friday, March 24, 2006 2:26 PM you wrote:
>
> Bill Page writes:
> |
> | Can you give a couple of specific examples of the kind of
> | design issues where you think the authors are being too
> | vague and the problems might be difficult to solve?
>
> Yes; take the example on page 39 un
I'm in a bit over my head here but maybe these questions will be useful
in straightening me out...
--- root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> re: the future of aldor
>
> there are some sticky IP issues with aldor. Manuel was a major
> contributor and he is no longer able to agree to donate his code.
"Page, Bill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Gaby,
|
| On Friday, March 24, 2006 9:49 AM you wrote:
| >
| > Bill Page writes:
| > ...
| > | Have you read the actual B# paper? There is no "hand
| > | waving". The user interacts with only one type - the
| > | UserType. The UserType in turn has a we
Gaby,
On Friday, March 24, 2006 9:49 AM you wrote:
>
> Bill Page writes:
> ...
> | Have you read the actual B# paper? There is no "hand
> | waving". The user interacts with only one type - the
> | UserType. The UserType in turn has a well-defined
> | relationship to the underlying types defined
"Page, Bill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| > re: B-natural
| >
| > B-natural won't replace the interpreter because the real
| > semantics of an expression is carried in the type. B-natural
| > has the essential goal of hand-waving away the type issues
| > to make it easier for people who d
root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| we would probably get further faster by working out the exact
| coercion/conversion graph and formalizing the mechanism. then we could
| make the interpreter smarter as well as extend it to special domains
| (e.g. to interval arithmetic which does not pre
Tim,
On Thursday, March 23, 2006 9:35 PM you wrote:
>
> re: quote
>
> nope. i agree with this rather insightful quote though:
> BOOT is toast. :-)
I'll pass on that one.
>
> re: the future of aldor
>
> there are some sticky IP issues with aldor. Manuel was a
> major contributor and he is no
re: quote
nope. i agree with this rather insightful quote though: BOOT is toast. :-)
re: the future of aldor
there are some sticky IP issues with aldor. Manuel was a major
contributor and he is no longer able to agree to donate his code.
i'm in discussion with people associated with INRIA about
On Thursday, March 23, 2006 9:01 PM Tim Daly (root) wrote:
> Bill Page wrote:
> > Apparently Tim is not so convinced of the future of
> > Aldor. :(
>
> I'm not? News to me. --Tim
>
Oh, ok. Good.
Then does that mean you also agree with the larger
context of this quote: that we should only pla
--- Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Or (in the best of all possible worlds :):
>
> b-natural -- single-type langauge
> Aldor compiler -- defines the algebra language and types
>common lisp -- a parenthesized common lisp which is untyped
>
> If we get rid of SPAD and the old
On March 22, 2006 10:12 PM Tim Daly (root) wrote:
>
> ok, lets get the confusion out of the way before this gets
> too far along...
:o)
>
> The "stack" of languages looks like:
>
> spad -- an algebra language using types
>spad compiler -- defines the algebra language and types
> bo
On March 22, 2006 8:41 PM Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
> Tim Daly (root) writes:
>
> | BOOT is unrelated to B-natural.
> | BOOT is a syntactic sugar cover for common lisp.
I think it tastes whole lot better that way! :)
But your view of what constitutes "syntactic sugar" goes
way beyond mine. It d
root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| mnt/linux/doc/src/boot.Makefile.dvi contains the only existing documentation
| of BOOT.
Thanks!
| BOOT is unrelated to B-natural.
|
| BOOT is a syntactic sugar cover for common lisp.
| B-natural is a typeless cover for Axiom's types.
I went through the previo
mnt/linux/doc/src/boot.Makefile.dvi contains the only existing documentation
of BOOT.
BOOT is unrelated to B-natural.
BOOT is a syntactic sugar cover for common lisp.
B-natural is a typeless cover for Axiom's types.
t
___
Axiom-developer mailing list
root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Bill's interest in B-natural could easily be grounded in BOOT code.
Tim,
Where is BOOT documented?
I believe I can understand some BOOT codes; but, it is better to be sure
than to guess :-)
-- Gaby
___
Axiom-dev
Hello,
C Y wrote:
--- Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think of B# as first of all generalizing 'Expression' so that
all of the computations that a user is likely to want to do can
be done entirely within that one domain - just as if they were
calculating using Maple or Mathematica. And
--- Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am very glad that you have been active in the standardization
> of C and that you are here discussing Axiom. Perhaps some day
> we will be talking about standardization of computer algebra
> languages?
A very interesting and potentially important tho
"Bill Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On November 21, 2005 2:56 PM Gaby wrote:
| > ...
| > | > | I still think the referenced article is well balanced
| > | > | and accurate.
| > | >
| > | > I don't think so If is full of confusion and misunderstanding.
| > |
| > | You have given only one
On November 21, 2005 2:56 PM Gaby wrote:
> ...
> | > | I still think the referenced article is well balanced
> | > | and accurate.
> | >
> | > I don't think so If is full of confusion and misunderstanding.
> |
> | You have given only one example of something you disagree with
>
> You're very k
"Bill Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| cast1.c: In function `main':
| cast1.c:10: warning: use of cast expressions as lvalues is
| deprecated
| float: 0
|
|
|
| I note that I do get a warning. So this is a feature in the
| language that is changing (deprecated).
N
On November 21, 2005 12:59 PM Gaby wrote:
>
> "Bill Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> |
> | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datatype
> |
> | >
> | > That is interesting but the link above is confused to start
> | > with. I quote:
> | >
> | >An example of the absence of strong typing is a C
--- Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think of B# as first of all generalizing 'Expression' so that
> all of the computations that a user is likely to want to do can
> be done entirely within that one domain - just as if they were
> calculating using Maple or Mathematica. And then simplifyi
"Bill Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On November 20, 2005 11:50 PM Gaby wrote:
| > |
| > | We have mentioned before on this list the very good article
| > |
| > | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datatype
| > |
| > | about type systems in programming languages. "strong type
| > | checking" has
On Sunday 20 November 2005 17.52, you wrote:
>
> I wonder if your colleague who said: "strong typing is for the
> weak of minds" really knows what "types" in computer programming
To be fair to him, he quoted another colleagues in the US who said that to
him. The full quote went something like: "W
On November 20, 2005 11:50 PM Gaby wrote:
> |
> | We have mentioned before on this list the very good article
> |
> | http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datatype
> |
> | about type systems in programming languages. "strong type
> | checking" has several different definitions but I think most
> | peopl
On November 21, 2005 10:30 AM I wrote:
> ...
> I think of B# as first of all generalizing 'Expression' so that
> all of the computations that a user is likely to want to do can
> be done entirely within that one domain - just as if they were
> calculating using Maple or Mathematica. And then simp
On November 20, 2005 11:41 PM Tim Daly (root) wrote:
>
> I suggested the BOOT language because some of the ideas are
> already implemented there. Making it a standalone language
> would give us a place to play with various syntactic and
> semantic changes. Starting to build a compiler from scratch
"Bill Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On November 20, 2005 8:28 PM Gaby wrote:
|
| >
| > "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" writes:
| > ...
| > | On the other hand, if you're looking to do symbolic math,
| > | is there any reason not to use Lisp?
| >
| > Not a significant reason -- but Lisp's type
"Bill Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On November 20, 2005 10:16 PM Tim Daly (root) wrote:
|
| >
| > Two comments. Lisp IS strongly typed. It just associates the type
| > with the object and not with the box (variable) it comes in. That
| > is, it distinguishes a TV from the box labelled TV
I suggested the BOOT language because some of the ideas are already
implemented there. Making it a standalone language would give us a
place to play with various syntactic and semantic changes. Starting
to build a compiler from scratch would be a lot of work.
t
__
On November 20, 2005 10:16 PM Tim Daly (root) wrote:
>
> Two comments. Lisp IS strongly typed. It just associates the type
> with the object and not with the box (variable) it comes in. That
> is, it distinguishes a TV from the box labelled TV as the type is
> related to the object and not the bo
On November 20, 2005 8:28 PM Gaby wrote:
>
> "M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" writes:
> ...
> | On the other hand, if you're looking to do symbolic math,
> | is there any reason not to use Lisp?
>
> Not a significant reason -- but Lisp's type system is not
> what I would consider "strong" :-)
We have
Two comments. Lisp IS strongly typed. It just associates the type with
the object and not with the box (variable) it comes in. That is, it
distinguishes a TV from the box labeled TV as the type is related to
the object and not the box. Other "strongly-typed" languages don't so
once you say a box (v
On November 20, 2005 6:12 PM Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
> Doug Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Isn't Axiom written in Lisp?
>
> sort-of -- and it depends on your definition of Lisp. See
> the recent long threads about BOOT vs. Lisp vs. The-Rest-
> of-The-World :-)
>
>From my point o
"M. Edward (Ed) Borasky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| If you're interested in a procedure-oriented language that delivers as
| much bullet-proofing and compile time bug prevention as is "humanly
| possible", have a look at Pascal's descendent, Ada. "Serious
| anal-retentive" procedure orie
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
C has a type system -- serious C programmers know how to use it. Yes,
it does not get anal-retentive about it where it should. And that is
a pity. Notice that Pascal and C started almost at the same time...
Both are descendents of Algol 60. Pascal resembles its ance
Doug Stewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| Isn't Axiom written in Lisp?
sort-of -- and it depends on your definition f Lisp. See the recent
long threads about BOOT vs. Lisp vs. The-Rest-of-The-World :-)
-- Gaby
___
Axiom-developer mailing lis
"Bill Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On November 20, 2005 2:47 PM Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| >
| > "Bill Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > [...]
| > | I wonder if your colleague who said: "strong typing is for the
| > | weak of minds" really knows what "types" in computer programming
| >
Bill Page wrote:
On November 20, 2005 2:47 PM Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
"Bill Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| I wonder if your colleague who said: "strong typing is for the
| weak of minds" really knows what "types" in computer programming
| really are?
well, if Pascal has a strong
On November 20, 2005 2:47 PM Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
> "Bill Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [...]
> | I wonder if your colleague who said: "strong typing is for the
> | weak of minds" really knows what "types" in computer programming
> | really are?
>
> well, if Pascal has a strong type sy
"Bill Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| I wonder if your colleague who said: "strong typing is for the
| weak of minds" really knows what "types" in computer programming
| really are?
well, if Pascal has a strong type system, then I can't see how I can
disagree :-/
-- Gaby
___
On November 20, 2005 3:03 AM Hans Peter Würmli wrote:
>
> On Sunday 20 November 2005 07.05, root wrote:
> > if you do
> > )lisp (trace pf2sex)
>
> pf2sex is currently missing in the Debian distribution,
> so I can't try.
I also can not find any reference to 'pf2sex' in my copy of
the Axiom sour
The single hardest part of the Bnatural interpreter would be writing
the semantics of the evaluator. Because it mixes every possible type
of syntax-to-semantics mapping it is important that the syntax is
not ambiguous.
We'd have to develop the grammer and semantics very, very carefully.
t
On Sunday 20 November 2005 07.05, root wrote:
> if you do
> )lisp (trace pf2sex)
pf2sex is currently missing in the Debian distribution, so I can't try.
> ... It should
> be possible to write USER algebra domain that captures
> this, parses it, and allows you to manipulate it as a
> tree expres
if you do
)lisp (trace pf2sex)
you can see the input translated to s-expressions which
are essentially a GREAT-like data structure. It should
be possible to write USER algebra domain that captures
this, parses it, and allows you to manipulate it as a
tree expression.
t
On November 19, 2005 2:05 AM Hans Peter Würmli wrote:
>
> In "How to Make AXIOM Into a Scratchpad" Jenks and Trager
> describe "... a new user interface language ..." for Axiom,
> which they called B# ("B natural") in the article. If it ever
> had been implemented, it would offer a lot of the lan
In "How to Make AXIOM Into a Scratchpad" Jenks and Trager describe "... a new
user interface language ..." for Axiom, which they called B# ("B natural") in
the article. If it ever had been implemented, it would offer a lot of the
language elements at least I would have hoped for in the interpre
60 matches
Mail list logo
