> How would what you call SPAD-1 differ from BOOT? Gaby and Waldek have > done a lot to make BOOT a credible language in it's own right.
I called it SPAD-1 and not BOOT, because is should in fact not be different from SPAD-2 (or SPAD in general). SPAD-2 is just a well defined current-SPAD which just has a little less functionality (power) than what one would need for programming a debugger (which would use SPAD-1). For example, I don't find reflection very much important for the implementaton of maths. You remember that Tim wanted to remove BOOT in favour of LISP. I were more in favour of removing BOOT and replace it by SPAD code. The more can be written at a 'higher level' the better. 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
