Someone (maybe, Jerzy Karczmarczuk) wrote recently
Do you know what makes Maple so attractive for newbies, for teachers,
etc? One of the reasons is simply scandalous, awful, unbelievably
silly : the lack of distinction between a symbolic indeterminate,
and the program variable. You write
On Sun, 28 Nov 1999, S.D.Mechveliani wrote:
Is there any problem?
Introduce the program variables x,y... and bound them to the symbolic
indeterminates.
For example, in DoCon program, it is arranged about like this:
let { s = cToPol ["x","y"] 1; [x,y] = varPs s }
in
To my
Introduce the program variables x,y... and bound them to the symbolic
indeterminates. [..] in DoCon program, it is arranged about like this:
let {s = cToPol ["x","y"] 1; [x,y] = varPs s} in x^2*(x - x*y) ...
[..]
Hence, in many computations after `in', x,y denote what is
On Sun, 28 Nov 1999, S.D.Mechveliani wrote:
DoCon provides the standard functions
cToPol "coefficient to polynomial",
varPs "variables as polynomials".
In other algebra systems, they are easy to program too - as soon as
Here is the second part of my answer. First, I want to tell you that
my feelings on the subject are exactly like yours, i.e., (a) I think that
it is possible to use Haskell to build packages like Matlab, Labview,
Maple, Mathematica, etc. (b) There is clear advantages in doing this.
However, I
On Sun, 28 Nov 1999, Eduardo Costa wrote:
[About several promissing signs of usage of FP
for scientific applications].
Far from pouring cold water on anybody's enthusiasm
regarding the usage of FP to scientific problems
(I would really like to see
