On 10/22/2008 11:44 PM, Martin Rubey wrote: > For empty?, zero? and perhaps also one?, I actually find using these > clearer than equality, since [], 0 and 1 are really very special > things.
Do you see a difference between (the constant) "empty" and the function "bracket" that is called with an empty tuple as argument? Oh yes, panAxiom doesn't distinguish between constants and nullary function. :-( > (Note that in written German, there is a rule of thumb saying that > the numbers from zero to twelve should be spelled out... I think > that's quite similar) I wonder whether they had 6 fingers back at the time when they invented that rule. ;-) > Of course, we could also check in "=" whether one of the arguments is > 0, to do optimisations. You are, only allowed to do that, if 1) there is a function zero? and 2) zero? and =0 are tightly connected in the obvious way. If you transform =0 to zero? automagically that would mean another rule that is build into the language. (In general I don't like it, but for 0 an 1 it might be OK, since they are already treated in a special way--they are not numbers but special identifiers that do not contain alpha-letters.) Ralf --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
