Martin Rubey wrote:
>
> Many uses of is?(f, "xxx"::Symbol) actually really want name equality, because
> that's the way "operator" is implemented. For example in COMBF:
>
> operator op ==
> is?(op, "factorial"::Symbol) => opfact
> is?(op, "permutation"::Symbol) => opperm
> is?(op, "binomial"::Symbol) => opbinom
> is?(op, "summation"::Symbol) => opsum
> is?(op, "%defsum"::Symbol) => opdsum
> is?(op, "product"::Symbol) => opprod
> is?(op, "%defprod"::Symbol) => opdprod
> is?(op, POWER) => oppow
> error "Not a combinatorial operator"
>
> similar in algfunc and elementry. In these three files, properties are put on
> the operators, i.e., they modify them destructively.
>
I must say that ATM I would prefer to postpone deper changes to
operators. Currenly have no clear idea which design is better.
There are few possibilities:
1) each "functional" domain has its own oparators
2) common oparators but domain specific properties
3) common oparators including properties
Theoretically the first possibility is in spirit of other
parts of Axiom/FriCAS. But we clearly need to pass
operators between domains, so first possibility means that
we need some dictionaries to convert operators. In practice
we are likely to use common dictionary or just use name
for translation. In other words the first variant looks
rather impractical. On the other hand second and third
variant require coordination between domains.
--
Waldek Hebisch
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"FriCAS - computer algebra system" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/fricas-devel?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
