I think it is unfortunate that as an operator that returns Union(...,"failed") the name is irregular. Most such operators have names like 'subtractIfCan' with 'IfCan' as a suffix. But 'quoIfCan' seems awkward to me and I think it would be nicer to use a single character marker similar to ! and ?. A name with a trailing % might be suitably mnemonic for such "partial" operators. Then 'quo%' and 'subtract%' etc.
Bill, isn't "operator" in SPAD just standing for an ordinary function that can be used in infix form?
There is no reason that exquo would have to return Union(..., "failed"). For any operator foo one should be able to define something like (x: X) foo (y: Y): Z == .... for any types X,Y,Z. Unfortunately, in SPAD, one still has to write extra parentheses. ((x: X) foo (y: Y)): Z == .... to get the precedence right. :-( 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.
