I also would like Axiom's input language to be a little richer. The
notation < ... > is a good example. Notations like <...| (bra) and |
...> (ket) would also be nice. In principle it should be possible to
introduce names for this (e.g. bracket) like those for [ ... ]
(construct) and { ... } (brace), but I worry that it could lead to
complications in the syntax analysis. What would you think of "double
backet" constructions like
(< u,v >)
'(<' being a combination which otherwise would be syntactically
incorrect. I think there is some facility already in place for parsing
similar combinations.
Regards,
Bill Page.
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Johannes Grabmeier wrote:
>
> actually I would like to have a notation like
>
> (8) -> u : Vector Integer := [2,3,4]
>
> (8) [2,3,4]
> Type: Vector(Integer)
> (9) -> v : Vector Integer := [2,-1,3]
>
> (9) [2,- 1,3]
> Type: Vector(Integer)
> (10) -> <u,v> // instead of dot(u,v)
>
> (10) 13
> Type: PositiveInteger
>
// your java is showing :-)
>
> Am Dienstag, 18. November 2008 15:14 schrieb Johannes Grabmeier:
>> I agree that this should carefully be redesigned. Don't forget the
>> scalarproduct in this context, which is called "dot" in AXIOM.
>>
>> (1) -> )d op dot
>>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
