On March 29, 2006 5:09 PM Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
>
> Maybe some people are very accustomed to SExpressions, I am
> not. I am perfectly happy with Lists whose elements have a
> particular type, for example, "List(Boolean)". Sexpressions
> are already a bit more complicated. And I cannot belief that
>
On 03/24/2006 06:54 PM, Page, Bill wrote:
Maybe S-expression can be defined in Aldor without imports
from foreign lisp something like this (very roughly):
[snip]
But then you would just be re-inventing part of Lisp inside
Aldor and there doesn't seem to be much point since you can
get all this
Hi Bill,
... I am proposing to remove NIL (or at least to hide it
in some low level library), since in my eyes that sounds
not very mathematical. If I want an empty list, it is
much better to say "empty$List(...)" than "NIL$Lisp".
Don't you agree?
Sure. It's only a name. Maybe the notation:
On 03/21/2006 04:55 PM, Page, Bill wrote:
Tim,
On Tuesday, March 21, 2006 11:00 AM you wrote:
...
AXIOMsys has a large set of libraries. These libraries
can't be compiled and executed standalone because they
assume the underlying lisp (grep for $Lisp in the algebra
sources).
Very true.
I
On 03/24/2006 10:44 AM, Page, Bill wrote:
On Wednesday, March 22, 2006 5:26 AM you wrote:
Maybe I should be quiet, but I have a vision for Axiom and that simply
says: Use higher level language constructs instead of lower level ones.
It also says that people contributing to Axiom should write in
Greetings!
"Page, Bill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Camm,
>
> On Wednesday, March 22, 2006 3:44 PM you wrote:
> >
> > Bill Page writes:
> > > ... It should be made easier to use Axiom
> > > in this way, i.e. via an application programmer interface
> > > (API). Right now it is possible to do t
On Friday, March 24, 2006 8:50 AM Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
>
> On 03/24/2006 10:44 AM, Page, Bill wrote:
> > On Wednesday, March 22, 2006 5:26 AM you wrote:
>
> Maybe I should be quiet, but I have a vision for Axiom and
> that simply says: Use higher level language constructs
> instead of lower level
Ralf,
On Wednesday, March 22, 2006 5:26 AM you wrote:
> ...
> I grep'ped for $Lisp. Well, that makes 2568 occurrences and
> for my taste a very bad design. Wouldn't it be much better to
> concentrate all the Lisp dependencies in just a few modules
> and write the rest depending on that modules
Camm,
On Wednesday, March 22, 2006 3:44 PM you wrote:
>
> Bill Page writes:
> > ... It should be made easier to use Axiom
> > in this way, i.e. via an application programmer interface
> > (API). Right now it is possible to do this via socket calls.
> > This is how Hyperdoc communicates with Axiom
Greetings!
"Bill Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ralf,
>
> On March 22, 2006 6:18 AM you wrote:
> > I somehow think that providing (symbolic) libraries (besides
> > the Axiom we have) is just another way to bring symbolic
> > computation to a broader public. Is that such a bad idea?
>
> T
Ralf,
On March 22, 2006 6:18 AM you wrote:
>
> On 03/21/2006 04:55 PM, Page, Bill wrote:
> [snip]
> >> A more effective path would be to load and compile your
> >> computation in lisp and then generate a standalone image to
> >> do that computation, sort of a special version of AXIOMsys.
> >> Thi
Hi Tim,
On 03/21/2006 04:55 PM, Page, Bill wrote:
[snip]
A more effective path would be to load and compile your
computation in lisp and then generate a standalone image to
do that computation, sort of a special version of AXIOMsys.
This IS standalone, machine-language code with an embedded
lisp
Tim,
On Tuesday, March 21, 2006 12:21 PM you wrote:
>
> Greenspun's Tenth Rule:
>
> Any sufficiently complicated C or Fortran program contains an
> ad hoc, informally specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation
> of half of Common Lisp.
>
> Here known as the motto of the narrow minded :-)
No.
> > There have been numerous attempts by many people to create
> > a standalone version of the AXIOMsys library. All have
> > failed because the libraries assume lisp. I suppose you
> > could figure out a way to link GUILE into the aldor
> > libraries and succeed thru that path.
>
> I cannot see a
Tim,
On Tuesday, March 21, 2006 11:00 AM you wrote:
> ...
> AXIOMsys has a large set of libraries. These libraries
> can't be compiled and executed standalone because they
> assume the underlying lisp (grep for $Lisp in the algebra
> sources).
>
Very true.
> There have been numerous attempts
> Why would someone want libaxiom.a in the first place?
>
> Well, that is needed to produce stand alone programs. And I was and I am
> still not sure how library code is executed internally inside Axiom. Is
> it always interpreted LISP or does AXIOMsys contain object code from the
> ALGEBRA l
Hi,
Le mardi 21 mars 2006 à 12:53 +0100, Ralf Hemmecke a écrit :
[...]
> OK, I should have been more precise. By "Axiom kernel", of course, I
> meant the current Algebra stuff (basically everything that goes into
> libaxiom.al). I know that Axiom actually has NO kernel in the sense of
> Maple
Hi Bill,
let me CC this to axiom-developer since there might be some more people
who know how Axiom works internally.
A sort summary. Last night I tried to compile libaxiom.al -> libaxiom.a.
That did not work because the Aldor compiler told me.
[...]
ar x libaxiom.al basecliq.ao;
/home/hemm
18 matches
Mail list logo
