I still haven't heard about your use case, so I can only guess.
I think you are not right.
If I look at MakeFunction then I see
function(s:S, name:SY, args:List SY) ==
interpret function(convert s, args, name)$InputForm
name
so if S is Inputform then I would expect that simply calling
function(s, args, name)
does the job. (But as I said, I don't know what you want to achieve.)
Ralf
On 10/22/2008 05:21 PM, Martin Rubey wrote:
> Ralf Hemmecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>> * Maybe every domain (either of category Type, or BasicType) should have
>>> CoercibleTo(%), and ConvertibleTo should have CoercibleTo. There are two
>>> possible reasons against it:
>>>
>>> 1) it might not work (after all, it's somehow recursive)
>>>
>>> 2) it might slow down the system.
>> It should not hurt the Compiler, but maybe the interpreter.
>>
>> What I don't understand is your motivation for adding
>>
>> coerce: % -> %
>>
>> to any BasicType. What use case do you have in mind?
>
> Oh, I see now. The right design is to simply change
>
> MakeFunction(S: ConvertibleTo InputForm): Exports == Implementation where
>
> to
>
> MakeFunction(S: InputForm): Exports == Implementation where
>
> right?
>
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
