Ralf Hemmecke <[email protected]> writes: | >> 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).
If you call it 'construct', then you can use '[]'-notation. And the interpreter can be convinced -- through modemap selection -- to do the right thing. List Any is what the interpreter uses when it is forced to make sense of something it could not possibly understand. [...] | 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. Agreed. Some systems use 'post-facto' extensions for this. | FriCAS doesn't (yet) have an "extend" keyword and thus extending means | recompilation of FriCAS. -- Gaby -- 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.
