Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
> BTW, a general approach I have been working on for some time now is to
> have a domain ParseForm, for parse forms i.e. parse trees after they
> have been property annotated, at the Spad level, and define a
> protocol to construct new entities out of ParseForms. This ParseForm
> domain is different from InputForm (which represents only expressions).
> That way people can extend the interpreter in ways unimagined by
> OpenAxiom developers, and move lot of code out of the interpreter itself.
> The tricky part, of course, is to nail down the protocol so that it is
> both useful and safe enough.
>
I wonder how do you want to handle typechecking: is ParseForm intended
to be essentially untyped representation which is passed instead of
strings to evaluator (which annotates it with types)? Or is ParseForm
(including its evaluation) intended to obey normal Spad type rules?
--
Waldek Hebisch
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Axiom-math mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-math
