On Wednesday 12 Oct 2011 17:09:44 Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > Martin Baker <[email protected]> writes: > | Strangely enough (just for the record) although per is not a known > | function in FriCAS the following line does not produce a compile > | error: > | > | arbitrary == per(-1) > | > | but it did not return the expected type, so I had to do: > | > | per(x:Rep):% == x pretend % > | arbitrary == per(-1) > > I think the latter was part of what Bill said.
What I'm saying is, in FriCAS, if rep is called but not defined, then I get a compiler error: >> Apparent user error: cannot compile (rep a) but if per is called but not defined then there is no compiler error (except for possible type mismatch in other parts of the program). Is that what Bill said? > That is a valid criticism and one that I heard frequently. > However, I believe it is also plainly clear that OpenAxiom and FriCAS are > not at war (at least, the two leading developers are not) so I am not > sure "reconcicialtion" is the right word -- maybe you meant something else. Yes, I did not mean to imply you are at war, just pointing out the difficulties for end users. 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.
