Johannes Grabmeier wrote:
>
> Hallo,
>
> there seems to be improvement potential in the interpreter output )display,
> look at:
>
> (209) -> )d op dot
>
> There are 2 exposed functions called dot :
> [1] (D,D) -> D1 from D
> if D has DIRPCAT(D2,D1) and D1 has TYPE and D1 has RING
> [2] (D,D) -> D1 from D
> if D has VECTCAT(D1) and D1 has TYPE and D1 has RING
>
> This is confusing, as there is the undefined symbol D2, actually D2 must be
> an element of NNI
>
> In both signature, D1 conditions could simplify to
> "and D1 has RING" has RING has TYPE anyway.
>
> o.k. this is probably more efford.
AFAICS D2 has to be valid as argument of DIRPCAT but there is no
extra condidtions. OTOH 'dot' is present in DIRPCAT only if D1 has Ring.
I am not sure how much information should we print: giving a lot of
related information tends to make output large so that it scrolls
of the screen and users do no see it. "Minimal" output may be
confusing.
There is inconsistency: for D1 condition imposed by DIRPCAT (that
is Type) is written, while for D2 not.
I am more worried because HyperDoc gives even worse info: it does
not mention that D1 has to be a Ring.
--
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.
