On Tue, 2006-11-21 at 22:14 +0100, Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
> > Rep and Per are good for many things, but it might be worth adding a
> > shorthand for 'my representation is just a record'. Don't think of Rep
> > as an instance variable - it's a mapping between your type and an
> > underlying one. Tha
"Antoine Hersen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
|
| I would like SPAD' to have a more functional flavor to it( personal taste)
|
| Good news with depend type no need for polymorphisms or GADT !!!
I believe there is place for both.
| Algebraic type will be great !!! but I guess we will also
Rep and Per are good for many things, but it might be worth adding a
shorthand for 'my representation is just a record'. Don't think of Rep
as an instance variable - it's a mapping between your type and an
underlying one. That said, a default representation of Rep + Record
might be an interestin
C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| I guess it depends on the details of how such things are handled. You
| are proposing to have code at the SPAD level talk directly to things
| like external libraries?
My proposal is to formally specify a way for SPAD codes to talk to
external libraries.
--- Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> OK, thanks for the explanation.
>
> Since I'm not in the business of cloning Aldor, I'm not sure how that
> affects Axiom.
The discussions I am seeing so far seem to largely indicate that we
need to take SPAD i
C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >
| > | Indeed. The Aldor documentation is not free at all, and any attempt to
| > | define Aldor in a literate style would have to duplicate Aldor without
| > | duplicating too closely its documentati
Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Indeed. The Aldor documentation is not free at all, and any attempt to
> | define Aldor in a literate style would have to duplicate Aldor without
> | duplicating too closely its documentation - that's a real problem.
>
> I cannot par
I forgot,
Le vendredi 17 novembre 2006 à 21:46 +0100, Vanuxem Gregory a écrit :
[...]
> (4) -> ((1/4)=(1/4)::ANY)@Boolean
>
>(4) false
But
(8) -> (3=(3::ANY))@Boolean
(8) true
Greg
___
Axiom-developer mailing list
Axiom-developer@nong
Martin Rubey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| > Recursive algebraic types is a redundancy :-)
|
| But I didn't say "algebraic"! I want it for any functions F, G:
The point I'm trying to make -- I suspect it must be too indirect --
is that if we have algebraic types, recursive types (whether
Le vendredi 17 novembre 2006 à 13:15 -0500, Bill Page a écrit :
> On November 17, 2006 1:03 PM Vanuxem Gregory
> >
> > Le vendredi 17 novembre 2006 à 17:17 +0100, Martin Rubey a écrit :
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > I want to get rid of
> > > that stupid ANY workaround in the series domains.
> >
> >
Peter Broadbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 11:36 +0100, Martin Rubey wrote:
> > Peter Broadbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 08:43 +0100, Martin Rubey wrote:
> >
> > > > And, as you know, in my opinion the first step in making this happen i
On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 11:36 +0100, Martin Rubey wrote:
> Peter Broadbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 08:43 +0100, Martin Rubey wrote:
>
> > > And, as you know, in my opinion the first step in making this happen is to
> > > make the Axiom interpreter (!) understand Aldo
"Bill Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On November 17, 2006 1:03 PM Vanuxem Gregory
> >
> > Le vendredi 17 novembre 2006 à 17:17 +0100, Martin Rubey a écrit :
> >
> > [...]
> >
> > > I want to get rid of
> > > that stupid ANY workaround in the series domains.
> >
> > Get rid of ANY almost e
Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Martin Rubey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> |
> | > | What are "algebraic types"?
> | >
> | > Ralf and you have been doing it in your project, I think. Basically,
> | > an algebraic type is any dat
On November 17, 2006 1:03 PM Vanuxem Gregory
>
> Le vendredi 17 novembre 2006 à 17:17 +0100, Martin Rubey a écrit :
>
> [...]
>
> > I want to get rid of
> > that stupid ANY workaround in the series domains.
>
> Get rid of ANY almost everywhere.
>
Why get rid of ANY? What is wrong with this id
On November 17, 2006 1:03 PM Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
>
> On 11/17/2006 06:17 PM, Bill Page wrote:
> ...
> > I would love to see some documentation of this work. My
> > impression is that it was largely done in a "closed" non-
> > open source manner. Was there a reason for that? Is there a
> > licens
Le vendredi 17 novembre 2006 à 17:17 +0100, Martin Rubey a écrit :
[...]
> I want to get rid of
> that stupid ANY workaround in the series domains.
Get rid of ANY almost everywhere.
Greg
___
Axiom-developer mailing list
Axiom-developer@nongnu.org
h
On 11/17/2006 06:17 PM, Bill Page wrote:
On November 17, 2006 11:56 AM Martin Rubey wrote:
Just have a look at the WishList for some others.
Oh, I think we should drop Mupad-combinat from the wishlist.
That's done. :-)
I would love to see some documentation of this work. My
impression is th
Martin Rubey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| > | What are "algebraic types"?
| >
| > Ralf and you have been doing it in your project, I think. Basically,
| > an algebraic type is any data type on can construct with sum and
| > products. Examples,
On November 17, 2006 11:56 AM Martin Rubey wrote:
> ...
> Just have a look at the WishList for some others.
>
> Oh, I think we should drop Mupad-combinat from the wishlist.
> That's done. :-)
>
I would love to see some documentation of this work. My
impression is that it was largely done in a
Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | I did quite a bit of work with Aldor now (within the species project
> | together with Ralf), and I'm quite convinced of the features of this
> | language. In particular, the semantics of Aldor feel very "sound" to me,
> | i.e., Aldor usually does
Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | What are "algebraic types"?
>
> Ralf and you have been doing it in your project, I think. Basically,
> an algebraic type is any data type on can construct with sum and
> products. Examples,
>
> BinaryTree t = Nil | Node t (BinaryTree t) (Bin
Martin Rubey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
|
| > | I did quite a bit of work with Aldor now (within the species project
| > | together with Ralf), and I'm quite convinced of the features of this
| > | language. In particular, the semantics of Aldor
Ralf Hemmecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You won't believe once I told my students to send files in plain ASCII.
I still do this. By the way, currently, I do not have umlauts when ssh'ing from
home to work. Our local support looked at it, but didn't find the reason. Very
likely, it is a probl
On 11/17/2006 05:17 PM, Martin Rubey wrote:
Ralf Hemmecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I would very much like to be able to use any fancy character to denote the
multiplication of a monoid (not just ASCII).
I strongly disagree on this point. Any character OK, i.e., defining some
operation to b
Dear Tim,
root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm afraid that I'm more inclined to deeply document the existing compiler
> before trying to tackle the problem of language modification. [...]
> [...] My contribution to the Aldor effort involved making Aldor work inside
> Axiom [...]
In fact, I co
> I guess it's Peter. Laurentiu says he doesn't know about the axiom
> side, but I know he knows foam. Tim, do you know about that stuff?
> Gaby, Waldek, did you dig into this connection yet?
I'm afraid that I'm more inclined to deeply document the existing
compiler before trying to tackle the pro
Ralf Hemmecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would very much like to be able to use any fancy character to denote the
> multiplication of a monoid (not just ASCII).
I strongly disagree on this point. Any character OK, i.e., defining some
operation to be infix or postfix, but please stay with ASC
Ralf Hemmecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > I've looked into FOAM, yes. But, from my perspective improved SPAD
| > should not be a clone of Aldor.
|
| Do you also consider to forget about FOAM? I guess, it is not below
| SPAD anyway.
I don't propose to forget it.
But, it is not on _my_ list o
Martin Rubey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Dear Christian, Gaby, Waldek,
|
| Christian, I'm copying this to you since I think that you have a lot to say
| with respect to features and shortcomings of Aldor. I would like to ask you to
| join the discussion, time permitting.
|
| Gabriel Dos Reis <
| I think that will be an important discussion to be had as a project -
| just how compatible with Aldor we want to stay.
Probably. I would like to see a discussion about what is necessary to
support computational mathematics in Axiom, rather than how closely SPAD
should ressemble another langua
I've looked into FOAM, yes.
But, from my perspective improved SPAD should not be a clone of Aldor.
Do you also consider to forget about FOAM? I guess, it is not below SPAD
anyway.
Ralf
___
Axiom-developer mailing list
Axiom-developer@nongnu.org
Dear Christian, Gaby, Waldek,
Christian, I'm copying this to you since I think that you have a lot to say
with respect to features and shortcomings of Aldor. I would like to ask you to
join the discussion, time permitting.
Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would like to see a disc
C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Waldek Hebisch wrote:
| > Martin Rubey wrote:
| >> C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >>
| >>> I think we should make the decision as a project not to wait any longer
for
| >>> Aldor, and commit to improving SPAD - up until now I think there has been
| >>> hesitat
Waldek Hebisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Martin Rubey wrote:
| > C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| >
| > > I think we should make the decision as a project not to wait any longer
for
| > > Aldor, and commit to improving SPAD - up until now I think there has been
| > > hesitation to commit se
Martin Rubey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
| I guess it's Peter. Laurentiu says he doesn't know about the axiom
| side, but I know he knows foam. Tim, do you know about that stuff?
| Gaby, Waldek, did you dig into this connection yet?
I've looked into FOAM, yes.
But, from my perspective i
Waldek Hebisch wrote:
> Martin Rubey wrote:
>> C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> I think we should make the decision as a project not to wait any longer for
>>> Aldor, and commit to improving SPAD - up until now I think there has been
>>> hesitation to commit serious effort to SPAD due to the
Martin Rubey wrote:
> C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I think we should make the decision as a project not to wait any longer for
> > Aldor, and commit to improving SPAD - up until now I think there has been
> > hesitation to commit serious effort to SPAD due to the possibility of Aldor
> >
Peter Broadbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 08:43 +0100, Martin Rubey wrote:
> > And, as you know, in my opinion the first step in making this happen is to
> > make the Axiom interpreter (!) understand Aldor generated code, i.e.,
> > dependent types.
>
> This is currently
On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 11:24 +0100, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
> Peter Broadbery wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 08:43 +0100, Martin Rubey wrote:
> > > Peter Broadbery is currently making Aldor extend work in Axiom. That's a
> > > giant
> > > step, in fact! Unfortuantely, it seems that support for de
Peter Broadbery wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 08:43 +0100, Martin Rubey wrote:
> > Peter Broadbery is currently making Aldor extend work in Axiom. That's a
> > giant
> > step, in fact! Unfortuantely, it seems that support for dependent types is
> > even
> > more difficult. One would have to un
On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 08:43 +0100, Martin Rubey wrote:
> C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I think we should make the decision as a project not to wait any longer for
> > Aldor, and commit to improving SPAD - up until now I think there has been
> > hesitation to commit serious effort to SPAD d
C Y <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I think we should make the decision as a project not to wait any longer for
> Aldor, and commit to improving SPAD - up until now I think there has been
> hesitation to commit serious effort to SPAD due to the possibility of Aldor
> becoming available and making su
43 matches
Mail list logo
