product: (A,B) -> %
I did not propose change to 'product' because we already have
'product' functions with somewhat different meaning. This
could confuse users. But maybe users can sort it out...
I don't care to confuse a few users now. It should be done nicely. Look
at all these cryptic function names that Maple still carries around. We
should rather think of a good convention.
If it were Aldor, I would have suggested
bracket: (A, B) -> %
so that one would later be able to say
[a,b]
in order to construct a product. Oh, maybe "construct" is used for this
kind of sugar in FriCAS. I just don't know how much the interpreter will
insist to turn [a,b] into List(Any) instead of Product(A,B).
Anyway, however this constructor function will be called, we need some
kind of convention. I say this, because also in the Aldor library I've
seen constructors with [..] and also table(...), array(...).
It should be easily guessable by a user.
But then, why not calling it Pair and also have Triple and Quadruple as
domains?
Product propagates structure (for example Group) from factors. This
> is not what I expect domain named Pair to do.
OK, that's an argument.
I'm currently too lazy to look up the use of Product, but I somehow
question it's usefulness. In particular, all these conditional exports
that must be extended whenever something new and interesting should be
exported by Product, don't make my heart happy. FriCAS doesn't (yet)
have an "extend" keyword and thus extending means recompilation of FriCAS.
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.
