Hi Bill, >> (12) -> vl : List Symbol := [x,y] >> >> (12) [x,y] >> Type: List(Symbol) >> (13) -> p:DMP(vl,Integer):=1 >> >> (13) 1 >> Type: DistributedMultivariatePolynomial([x,y],Integer)
> But what is the type of the right hand side of (13)? That is easy: DMP(vl,INT). Note that the 1 does appear in some context. If the interpreter would work similar to the compiler or as Aldor, then the type of the left and right hand side of := should match. So from the many types for 1 that are in scope here, only DMP(vl,INT) matches. > We can still always write: > > (15) -> test(p=interpret(convert(p)@INFORM)::typeOf(p)) > > (15) true > Type: Boolean Well, that sounds OK. > Note: There is a bug here however. I should be able to write this: > (16) -> test(p=interpret(convert(p)@INFORM)$INFORM1(typeOf(p))) You are calling test$InputFormFunctions(DMP(vl,INT)). That package does not have that function. > There are no library operations named x > Use HyperDoc Browse or issue > )what op x > to learn if there is any operation containing " x " in its name. > > Cannot find a definition or applicable library operation named x > with argument type(s) > Variable(y) > > Perhaps you should use "@" to indicate the required return type, > or "$" to specify which version of the function you need. > > ---- > > The error message above does not make sense. Well, I agree, the error message is quite misleading. >> I agree that both domains might be useful for "symbolic computation", >> but "symbolically" I can also use the big M's. > I am uncertain about the status of calculus (and some other parts of > mathematics) as a purely *algebraic* concept. But surely you are not > arguing that Axiom should not attempt to handle these sort of > computations? It makes sense to me to have some domain in Axiom where > "symbolic computation" is possible. Of course, FriCAS should also be able to cover things that the big M's do. I argue only that FriCAS should work "as typed as possible". I cannot prevent a user from giving imprecise input. There is probably always some guessing involved. But if finally types have been guessed and the user is satisfied with them, FriCAS should not use any conversion to an "untyped" (which InputForm is for me) object and later try to interpret manipulations of that. I would put the last thing basically on the same level as user input. 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
