Martin,
Maybe you are surprised by these result also?
(1) -> -+
(1) - +
Type: Polynomial(Integer)
(2) -> -*
(2) - *
Type: Polynomial(Integer)
(3) -> -/
(3) - /
Type: Polynomial(Integer)
(4) -> 1/+
1
(4) -
+
Type: Fraction(Polynomial(Integer))
...
etc. Although I agree they look strange, I would class them as "mostly
harmless" :-)
Regards,
Bill Page.
On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 9:49 AM, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
>
> Martin Rubey wrote:
>>
>> The book says otherwise, but
>>
>> (26) -> ^^^
>> ^
>> (26) ^
>> Type: Expression(Integer)
>>
>
> I am not sure to which part of Axiom book you refer, but for me
> it looks normal: operator symbols are treated as function names
> when grammar does not allow operator in given place. Once
> you get parsed form:
>
> parse("^^^")$InputForm
>
> (10) (^ ^ ^)
> Type: InputForm
> the rest just follows usual rules.
>
> To make things clear: I would be in favor of disabling various
> confusing notations. But the cost would be loss of various
> shortcuts. I am not sure if folks here would find this
> acceptable.
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
