On April 1, 2007 3:31 PM Gaby wrote: > ... > I regret to say, but I'm a big fan of encapsulation (where useful) > and prefer to see interfaces even if I'm spending all my time > tweaking in the innards. Thanks for the illustation. >
No problem. > The difference, as I see it comes from the larger number of > supported mathematical operations for Expression T, than there > are for InputForm. There are *no* mathematical (algebraic) operations in InputForm! That is the whole point of the discussion. > Augment InputForm with all useful mathematical operations > working on InputForm and you'll see very little difference > from Expression T. That is completely wrong. There is still a huge difference as I have now explained at least two different ways. :-( The operations in InputForm are purely symbolic. They could be written in simple Lisp or Python just as easily. That is definitely not true of Expression. Expression requires a very large portion of Axiom's library. > Hence, Martin's warning. I do not understand Martin's warning. I think it under the wrong impression (just as you are) about what I am saying. > > Also, be aware than the Axiom designers, in many places, > thought of Expression as the general domain for symbolic > manipulation and have appropriate hardwired type inference > rules in the interpreter. > Of course that is no problem. If you are able to read and understand Stephen Watt's paper on this subject, I am sure that this would be clear to you. Regards, Bill Page. _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
