"Bill Page" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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.
I'm afraid that <, > will lead to curious syntax surprises. Note that the
comma also separates statements.
a < b, c> d
could be: apply d to < b, c>, and this in turn to a,
or: (a < b), (c > d)
Of course one can try to minimise danger by introducing double brackets, but I
think time is better spent on redesign of the categories and domains.
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
