Waldek Hebisch <[email protected]> writes:
| I am not sure you can keep constructors calls completely uniform:
| we have 'construct', 'new' and a bunch of more specific constructors.
| Below is patch that I propose (only to Product, algebra will also
| need some adjustment). With the patch I can do:
I like the general flavour of it. However I have one quibble.
|
| (3) -> Pr := Product(Integer, Polynomial(Integer))
|
| (3) Product(Integer,Polynomial(Integer))
| Type: Type
| (4) -> [1, x]
|
| (4) [1,x]
| Type: List(Polynomial(Integer))
| (5) -> [1, x]$Pr
|
| (5) (1,x)
| Type: Product(Integer,Polynomial(Integer))
I think *one* kind of syntax should be sufficient. Either square
brackets or round brackets, but not both. The reason being that in
typical Spad code and scripts, we do not have much of type annotations
around to help quickly figure out what is meant. So, have only one way
of saying something is a tremendous help for code/script understanding.
I would vote for round brackets, but only marginally.
| (6) -> p1 := [1, x]$Pr
|
| (6) (1,x)
| Type: Product(Integer,Polynomial(Integer))
| (7) -> p2 := [7, y]$Pr
|
| (7) (7,y)
| Type: Product(Integer,Polynomial(Integer))
| (8) -> p1 + p2
|
| (8) (8,y + x)
| Type: Product(Integer,Polynomial(Integer))
| (9) -> p1*p2
|
| (9) (7,x y)
| Type: Product(Integer,Polynomial(Integer))
|
| Note that plain '[1, x]' produces a list -- one needs '$Pr' to choose
| 'construct' from the product.
Unless you specifiy the target, not? E.g.
a: Pr := [1,x]
or
[1,x]@Pr
-- 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.
