I'm not completely sure about the following (well, to be honest, I am, but I think I shouldn't be). In any case, I think we should take a decision. I see two possibilities:
A) InputForm should be precise. I.e., a given InputForm completely determines which functions are called, independent on what is exposed etc. B) InputForm should be vague. I.e., calling "interpret" on a given InputForm mimicks behaviour at the prompt. Currently, at least seriesSolve$EXPRODE depends on behaviour B: the InputForm corresponding to an element of EXPR INT is *not* decorated with package calls, and can easily be re-interpreted as function from UTS -> UTS. I think that this is not a very robust and clean solution, as demonstrated also by #301. I see two possibilities: a) provide a function that takes an InputForm, and converts calls to EXPR INT to calls to UTS or whatever needed. b) take a completely different approach. Ideas? 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
