"Bill Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The reason I think it is not such a good idea is because it explicitly > introduces the notion of type into InputForm values in an essential > way. There are no explicit types at all in the following examples: > > (float 231808574432053350722 - 66 2) > > (algebraicNumber (** 2 (/ 1 2)) ) > > only function calls. In an external environment like Sage, we need > only map these function calls to something native to Sage. If we pass > explicit type names, then we will need to handle them is another way, > making the process more complicated than it really needs to be.
I'm not sure whether this is true. I think there is very little difference between (:: (** 2 (/ 1 2)) (AlgebraicNumber)) and (algebraicNumber (** 2 (/ 1 2))) I just checked: you can do QQbar(2)^(1/2) but not QQbar(2^(1/2)) so you need to analyze the expression anyway. As little as I understand of Sage so far, domains seem to be pretty much mapped to Parents in Sage. I think we should try to keep this similarity. Martin --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
