Hi,
Le mercredi 22 juin 2005 à 11:27 -0400, William Sit a écrit :
> Martin Rubey wrote:
> > Currently, the parser of the interpreter and the parser of the compiler are
> > different. For example, you cannot define packages, domains or categories in
> > the interpreter.
>
> Much I would agree with
Since I'm in a hurry, only part of an answer:
William Sit writes:
> Martin Rubey wrote:
> > Currently, the parser of the interpreter and the parser of the compiler are
> > different. For example, you cannot define packages, domains or categories
> > in
> > the interpreter.
>
> Much I woul
Martin Rubey wrote:
> Currently, the parser of the interpreter and the parser of the compiler are
> different. For example, you cannot define packages, domains or categories in
> the interpreter.
Much I would agree with you that the difference between the two parsers is a
constant headache and cer
Dear all,
I would also think that it is a bad idea to do the dependency checking outside
of axiom. By the way, axiom does it already:
(1) -> f(x:INT):INT == 5
Function declaration f : Integer -> Integer has been added to
workspace.
Hm, an afterthought: I'm not quite sure whether what
Martin Rubey thought:
> I would also think that it is a bad idea to do the dependency checking
> outside
> of axiom.
makes sense.
Here a first shot at organizing the things axiom should consist of:
* a compiler
* an interpreter
* a u
Dear Bill,
in fact, I "knew" that what you describe below can be done. The sole purpose of
my mail was to try to get things organised. I have the feeling that it is not
at all clear what "we" want, and in fact, there are several different "we"s,
since some of us are doing math research, some want
Martin,
As you know, on MathAction we can write a pseudo-environment
\begin{axiom}
guess([1,1+q,1+q+q^2])
$GUESS(n,FRAC POLY INT,i+->q^i,FRAC POLY INT, EXPR INT, i+->i, i+->i)
\end{axiom}
to achieve the kind of output you describe below.
It would not be difficult at all to achieve this same res
Bob,
On Tuesday, June 21, 2005 9:47 PM you wrote:
> The integrate() function seems to work quite well, despite the fact
> that I might add two disparate things.
>
> (8) -> integrate(log(x)+x, x)
>
> 2
>2x log(x) + x - 2x
> (8) ---
>
> ...
> Am 20.06.2005 um 22:05 schrieb Bob McElrath:
>> I've also been thinking about the worksheet interface. One of
>> the main drawbacks I see is the concept of "state". The server
>> has some state that is different from the worksheet state.
> ...
On Tuesday, June 21, 2005 7:00 AM Kai Oliver
Page, Bill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> "Suppose we try a naive approach. We could decorate each domain (those
> parts of Axiom which have an internal representation) with a function
> that would return the internal representation recursively expanded
> into a lisp s-expression. We could also give ea
Kai Oliver Kaminski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> What kind of dependency tracking would you need? Just within a single
> page? For multiple pages? Send me use cases, tell me what you need.
I've been thinking about this a lot lately.
Mathematica seems to keep an array of input and output. (In[] an
11 matches
Mail list logo
