> Hmm, I still do not understand how species work but my impression was > that: > 1) species lack much of functionality present in concrete domains
true > 2) species impose serious overhead compared to specialized domains Also true, but here I would rather say one should follow the general idea behind all this generic stuff that Axiom deals with: Implement things generically and if you find some particular domain is not what you want then implement a special case for it. Example. Clearly, if we take the species definition L == 1+X*L this is certainly less efficient than a well-tuned implementation of List. But nobody forbids to turn (the build-in) List construtor into a species and then use it instead of the above L in all other species equations. What I want to say is: The species (framework) might occasionally be less efficient, but sometimes a particular domain is only needed once for a particular situation. So some users might be happy with having a slow version instead of none domain at all. I would not generally replace existing Axiom domains by species, but rather use species as an add-on and improve existing domains as one goes. I think this is what Martin meant. 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
