>>Let us suppose the following scenario. I remove any file from src/algebra/
>>and any corresponding Makefile entry. Then I start compiling Axiom. Would I
>>end up with an Axiom framework that has no mathematical knowledge.
actually, it's pretty close. if you do
)set mes auto on
you'll see that
> Should I know debugsys?
debugsys is an image i create for deep debugging in the axiom interpreter.
it loads the lisp code rather than the compiled lisp code so i can get
better backtrace information about a failure and i can single-step functions.
it's the same as AXIOMsys only it's interpreted.
> So in order to have a reasonable input/output behaviour on the Axiom
> command line, I should meet certain criteria. Is that written somewhere?
> References?
each domain defines its own print representation.
this is why you get different output if you do
(16) -> (1/2)*x^2+(2/3)*x+3
1
Ralf Hemmecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > But as far as I know, for Aldor this situation was abstracted and there is
> > now
> > a keyword for dealing with it, I believe it is "extend".
>
> Right. If you look at the sources of libaldor it starts with
> lib/aldor/src/lang/sal_lang.as and then
Since there is no definition of "Integer" in that file, the compiler must
know about that thing or it must look into integer.spad to find what Integer
stands for. Yes, yes, I know, here the whole business of circular
dependencies begins. I guess, finally, Integer will be an abelian group
itself. ;
Ralf Hemmecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Yes. But what exactly is mystical to you? Everything starts in catdef.spad,
> > and in fact the code is very easy to read, I find.
>
> Let me quote the first few lines... (documentation stripped)
>
> AbelianGroup(): Category == CancellationAbelianMon
Hi Martin,
If I knew where to hook libaldor into Axiom, I would already have done
so. But libaldor basically starts from zero and for Axiom the whole
construction of the domains and categories is still mystical to me.
In any case if SPAD should be translated to Aldor one has to start with som
On 02/14/2006 09:38 PM, C Y wrote:
OK. Here's a link for the lazy (me in a few hours ;-) :
http://www.aldor.org/docs/HTML/chap21.html
Be careful, the code there will probably not work.
print: TextWriter
<<: (TextWriter, SOMETYPE) -> TextWriter
Unfortunately, "print" is not in libaldor but i
Ralf Hemmecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> How do we resolve things like Aldor's libalgebra vs. Axiom's libraries?
>
> > I would propose that we forget about Aldor's native libraries for now (as
> > nice, though limited, as they are).
>
> If I knew where to hook libaldor into Axiom, I would
On Wednesday, February 15, 2006 12:12 AM Jay Belanger wrote:
>
> Bill Page writes:
> ...
> >> Hmm. But aren't there some cases where you want this, like
> >> (say) knowing that 4 is a real integer without having to
> >> explicitly say that? (Sorry that's probably a dumb question).
> >
> > The phr
"Bill Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
...
>> Hmm. But aren't there some cases where you want this, like
>> (say) knowing that 4 is a real integer without having to
>> explicitly say that? (Sorry that's probably a dumb question).
>
> The phrase "real integer" is kind of dumb ... :) What other ki
--- root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Agreed. Am I correct that the logical starting point is to
> > identify where the compiler ends and the math begins (whether it
> > is set/category theory or Axiom's domain and cagetory
> > implementation or whatever) and get the core parts documented
> >
> Agreed. Am I correct that the logical starting point is to identify
> where the compiler ends and the math begins (whether it is set/category
> theory or Axiom's domain and cagetory implementation or whatever) and
> get the core parts documented and working on top of Aldor?
The logical starting
--- Ralf Hemmecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Cliff,
>
> > Agreed. Am I correct that the logical starting point is to
> > identify where the compiler ends and the math begins (whether
> > it is set/category theory or Axiom's domain and cagetory
> > implementation or whatever) and get the co
Hi Cliff,
Agreed. Am I correct that the logical starting point is to identify
where the compiler ends and the math begins (whether it is set/category
theory or Axiom's domain and cagetory implementation or whatever) and
get the core parts documented and working on top of Aldor?
Yes, I think t
--- Ralf Hemmecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> How do we resolve things like Aldor's libalgebra vs. Axiom's
> >> libraries?
>
> > I would propose that we forget about Aldor's native libraries for
> > now (as nice, though limited, as they are).
>
> If I knew where to hook libaldor into Axiom,
Hello Laurentiu, hi Stephen,
www.aldor.org is down again also cvs access does not work.
Ralf
On 02/14/2006 12:13 AM, C Y wrote:
--- Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But from my perspective (which may or may not be accurate) we are
being hindered by the uncertainty surrounding SPAD vs. Ald
C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > Hmm. But aren't there some cases where you want this, like
> > > (say) knowing that 4 is a real integer without having to
> > > explicitly say that? (Sorry that's probably a dumb question).
> >
> > The phrase "real integer" is kind of dumb ... :) What other
How do we resolve things like Aldor's libalgebra vs. Axiom's
libraries?
I would propose that we forget about Aldor's native libraries for
now (as nice, though limited, as they are).
If I knew where to hook libaldor into Axiom, I would already have done
so. But libaldor basically starts from
If I'm understanding correctly, most of what we would like to
use from Aldor actually is available in source code form, with
the BSD+extra rights for Aldor.org license?
I am not so sure about, the libalgebra sources. Though I have access to
them, I have never seen them distributed from aldor.or
I can't help wondering if the material in the Reference section of the
Aldor Users Guide might be enough for us to define at least a basic
Aldor compiler in Lisp, and build on that.
I am strongly against writing a new compiler. That is too much effort.
And the compiler also falls under the APL1
--- Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On February 13, 2006 6:14 PM C Y wrote:
> >...
> > However, based on your comments below, I would suggest
> > the following steps might be immediately useful:
> >
> > a) Post the downloads for aldor on the Axiom site (I still can't
> > get through to
On February 13, 2006 6:14 PM C Y wrote:
>...
> However, based on your comments below, I would suggest
> the following steps might be immediately useful:
>
> a) Post the downloads for aldor on the Axiom site (I still can't
> get through to aldor.org :-( and the site is slower now) - I think
> this
--- Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On February 13, 2006 4:22 PM C Y wrote:
> >
> > --- Bill Page wrote:
> > > ... (Sorry Cliff, I don't mean to sound
> > > too harsh but we have so few resources working on Axiom that I
> > > worry that such unrealistic ideas can only serve to divert our
>
On February 13, 2006 4:22 PM C Y wrote:
>
> --- Bill Page wrote:
> > ... (Sorry Cliff, I don't mean to sound
> > too harsh but we have so few resources working on Axiom that I
> > worry that such unrealistic ideas can only serve to divert our
> > attention from what we can actually accomplish.)
>
--- Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > ..
> > I can't help wondering if the material in the Reference section
> > of the Aldor Users Guide might be enough for us to define at
> > least a basic Aldor compiler in Lisp, and build on that.
>
> This suggestion has been made a few times so I thin
On February 13, 2006 2:42 PM C Y wrote:
>
> That said, if Tim has already redone a given part in Literate
> Lisp, it's not worth redoing his work in Aldor for the foreseeable
> future - work of that quality can't be easily duplicated and for
> certain aspects of Axiom Lisp is in fact a good match.
27 matches
Mail list logo
