Bill Page <[email protected]> writes: | Ralf, | | To appreciate just how much effort Gaby has put into improving the | readability of Boot code in OpenAxiom it is very instructive to look | at JoinInner in both FriCAS and OpenAxiom. Just attempting to decode | how FriCAS actually ends up producing the output you show nearly | boggles my mind. But in OpenAxiom this same code is written as: | | PrinAncb := categoryPrincipals CatEval(bname,$e) | | If FriCAS does not soon adopt a similar approach I cannot imagine a good future. | | But of course advocating is one thing, finding time, energy and help | to do it is another.
I can't agree more with the last sentence :-) Regarding the debate of f(a.x) vs. f(a).x vs. (f(a)).x, I changed OpenAxiom's Boot parser long ago to parser f(a).x the way the Spad parser (and the interpreter) does, e.g. take the `x'-part of the result of applying `f' to `a'. It was a difference that does not need to be there; it confused occasionally, and it did not bring much. I take it from conversations with original AXIOM designers and implementors that Boot was really intended to be a form of AXIOM script (except the handling of '$'). -- 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.
