Bill, just an early thought:
I think the setProperty/property from BasicOperator
can be useful in such situation, e.g. attach a 'positive'
property to a constant (nullary operator) 'x', then
for example 'x>0' can return ture (well, there's no
'>' in EXPR), or 'sin(x*%pi)' can return 0. But this
a
On 12 April 2017 at 13:12, Raymond wrote:
> For instance after
> n : PI
> we get.
>
> (9) -> if (n>-3) then true else false
>
>n is declared as being in PositiveInteger but has not been given a
> value.
>
> This was also mentioned in:
> http://axiom-wiki.newsynthesis.org/DefiniteIntegra
On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 12:07:27 PM UTC-4, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
>
> Raymond Rogers wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 8:28:30 AM UTC-4, Raymond Rogers wrote:
> > >
> > > It seems that my macro/rule scheme has hit a bump in the road. When I
> > > run the small test program
Raymond Rogers wrote:
>
> On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 8:28:30 AM UTC-4, Raymond Rogers wrote:
> >
> > It seems that my macro/rule scheme has hit a bump in the road. When I
> > run the small test program below the second evocation "ex_1(m+n)" posts:
> > "There are 1 exposed and 0 unexpose
On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 8:28:30 AM UTC-4, Raymond Rogers wrote:
>
> It seems that my macro/rule scheme has hit a bump in the road. When I
> run the small test program below the second evocation "ex_1(m+n)" posts:
> "There are 1 exposed and 0 unexposed library operations named "
It seems that my macro/rule scheme has hit a bump in the road. When I
run the small test program below the second evocation "ex_1(m+n)" posts:
"There are 1 exposed and 0 unexposed library operations named "
I think that applyRules([ex..],xx,1) doesn't like rules that have more
than one r
> On 2nd thought maybe the time-out is more significant than the
> apparent abort in view3d? I have seen situations locally when the
> build will stall with one process waiting for output from another.
Maybe it's related to the travis ci environment. Since we only have
limited log, I'm not sure.
