On November 18, 2005 8:47 AM C Y wrote:
>
> --- root Tim Daly wrote:
> > ...
> > now, can we move back to discussing math?
>
> Sounds good to me - back to the math.
>
Yes I agree, back to the math! :-)
Is anyone interested in discussing the implementation of exact
computable reals in Axiom?
--- root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ummmkay... i admit i'm wrong.
>
> (bad tim puts down his keyboard weapon,
> abandons his entrenchment,
> and exits the language war)
>
> now, can we move back to discussing math?
Sounds good to me.
CY
_
--- root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ummmkay... i admit i'm wrong.
>
> (bad tim puts down his keyboard weapon,
> abandons his entrenchment,
> and exits the language war)
>
> now, can we move back to discussing math?
Sounds good to me - back to the math.
CY
__
ummmkay... i admit i'm wrong.
(bad tim puts down his keyboard weapon,
abandons his entrenchment,
and exits the language war)
now, can we move back to discussing math?
t
___
Axiom-developer mailing list
Axiom-developer@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu
On November 17, 2005 5:12 PM Tim Daly wrote:
>
> what are the semantics of these operations?
>
> evalandfileactq
> rdefiostream
> rplq
> *lam
> mdef
> comp370
> remove-fluids
> dcqexp
>
> unless you happen to have the documentation for vmlisp handy
> it's unlikely you'll be able to decide or ev
what are the semantics of these operations?
evalandfileactq
rdefiostream
rplq
*lam
mdef
comp370
remove-fluids
dcqexp
unless you happen to have the documentation for vmlisp handy
it's unlikely you'll be able to decide or even guess. future
generations won't even have vmlisp available. i spoke to F
--- Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On November 17, 2005 3:06 PM C Y wrote:
> >
> > To a point that may be true, but making old code run by
> > implementing layers that mimic the behavior of older lisps
> > is not something I would argue is a good thing.
>
> But Axiom has had just such a c
On November 17, 2005 3:06 PM C Y wrote:
>
> --- Bill Page wrote:
>
> >
> > Looking at the Axiom lisp code it is obvious that it contains
> > multiple layers and multiple styles, but I think it is not
> > correct to class this as "bizarre". Allowing such a mix of
> > layers and styles is one of t
--- Bill Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On November 17, 2005 9:17 AM C Y wrote:
> >
> > I think the point should be made that Tim (the "root" Tim) is
> > taking a more measured approach - rather than just making the
> > code work on ANSI lisp implementations, he is going in and
> > addressing/
On November 17, 2005 9:17 AM C Y wrote:
>
> I think the point should be made that Tim (the "root" Tim) is
> taking a more measured approach - rather than just making the
> code work on ANSI lisp implementations, he is going in and
> addressing/eliminating the multitude of bizarre layers that
> hav
nope. the test cases are embedded in the pamphlet file and get
run during the build. i have a wrapper function to compare
input and output.
___
Axiom-developer mailing list
Axiom-developer@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-develo
--- root <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> the process:
>
> mod the code
> doc the mods in the pamphlets
> supply appropriate test case(s)
> diff -Naur the files with the latest --patch level
> post the patches.
OK. I myself am quite content to wait for the robust rewrite but I
thought may
)39-26361, FAX:
+49(6131)39-26407
> -Original Message-
> From: root [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 6:44 PM
> To: Weiss, Juergen
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; axiom-developer@nongnu.org
> Subject: Re: [A
> Have done it 2 years ago. I won't do it again.
>
> Juergen Weiss
sigh. ok. it appears you feel slighted because your ansi patches
didn't get added to the system 2 years ago.
three years ago gcl was chosen (over ccl) because (a) i knew it worked
on akcl (gcl's parent code) and (b) i helped writ
> Tim, if patches were made available that would allow Axiom to
> transition to ANSI GCL would there be any chance they could be merged
> in with the latest release branch? Or do we want to avoid dealing with
> the problems that will surely crop up moving between Lisp
> implementations until the p
ED]
> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 5:48 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Weiss, Juergen; axiom-developer@nongnu.org
> Subject: Re: [Axiom-developer] axiom common lisp
>
> > Tim, if patches were made available that would allow Axiom to
> > transition
> Tim, if patches were made available that would allow Axiom to
> transition to ANSI GCL would there be any chance they could be merged
> in with the latest release branch? Or do we want to avoid dealing with
> the problems that will surely crop up moving between Lisp
> implementations until the p
I think the point should be made that Tim (the "root" Tim) is taking a
more measured approach - rather than just making the code work on ANSI
lisp implementations, he is going in and addressing/eliminating the
multitude of bizarre layers that have accumulated over the decades. (I
think - feel free
On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 13:29 +0100, Weiss, Juergen wrote:
...
> > Hahaha! :) You did a CMUCL port 2 years ago? In 1/2 a day? Nice. :)
>
> Did not say that. With the changes I made and the link to the
> sources I posted 2 years ago, it should not take longer than
> 1/2 a day to incorportate the c
> -Original Message-
> From: Tim Daly Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 11:57 AM
> To: Weiss, Juergen
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]; axiom-developer@nongnu.org
> Subject: RE: [Axiom-developer] axiom common lisp
>
&g
On Thu, 2005-11-17 at 10:20 +0100, Weiss, Juergen wrote:
> Actually the changes are minor, if you forget about
> changes in style. There is the changed package syntax.
> And there is the quoted function stuff and some minor
> changes (a few macros and one or two places in the algebra
> code) for s
TECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Behalf Of root
> Sent: Thursday, November 17, 2005 5:25 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: axiom-developer@nongnu.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [Axiom-developer] axiom common lisp
>
> Bill,
>
> in "ANSI Common Lisp" b
Bill,
in "ANSI Common Lisp" by Paul Graham (ISBN0-13-370875-6) on pp304-309
Graham lists the changes from common lisp to ansi common lisp. axiom
has example code that either violates the new standard (eg in-package)
or duplicates the new standard (destructuring binds) with our own twists.
Axiom is
23 matches
Mail list logo
