Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
>
> > One thing that I didn't mention yet was one thing that bothers me
> > quite often: an insufficient number of suitable infix symbols.
>
> Yes that would be great, but I guess that it will change the way that
> SPAD code is parsed and is probably not all too easy to implement.
Actually, SPAD parser is table-driven and it is easy to add new
operators to it. If you want a lot of new operators with non-letter
names (say hundreds), then one would have to work a bit on speed
(currenty parser uses linear search in operator table) but that
should not be too hard.
OTOH operators are hardcoded in the interpreter, so it is harder
there.
--
Waldek Hebisch
[email protected]
--
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.
