On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Ralf Hemmecke wrote: >Bill Page wrote: >> Could you explain why you prefer these to be pre-defined macros >> rather than being builtin as Gaby has done in OpenAxiom and Aldor? > > You should (currently) delete "and Aldor" from the last sentence. > > https://svn.origo.ethz.ch/algebraist/trunk/aldor/lib/aldor/include/aldor.as >
Thanks. Point accepted. Of course, almost everything is added-on to Aldor because really the core language itself is quite small. Still, rep and per could be local functions instead of macros. I simply wonder why one is preferable to the other. > Of course, one can make these things into a language defined concept. > However, one can also consider them to be just a convention. > If one wants to argue that Axiom (and Aldor) are fully typed languages, then it seems to me that one is obliged to claim that it is "part of the language". > This % thing is rather driven by the concept of universal algebra where > Rep refers to the carrier set. It's in some sense nice, since universal > algebra comprises a lot of cases, but take, for example, zero?: % -> > Boolean. Strictly speaking, this function cannot live in a universal > algebra, since Boolean is not the carrier set. > Honestly, I do not see the need for any of this discussion of universal algebra in the context of Axiom/Aldor. To me % is just a convenient name for "this domain". Many other languages including Java and Python have names like "this" or "self", or whatever. In Axiom/Aldor it is just %. Could you summarize again why you think it is important? > ... Regards, Bill Page. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
