Ralf, Why would you suggest using a macro when a function definition is sufficient? These functions do not introduce any overhead. Worse, why suggest two different ways of doing the same thing? :(
If they don't introduce *any* overhead, I prefer functions. But even if the compiler can compile function calls away, I don't want to see needless definitions. Extra need for definitions counts as overhead.
I am actually not sure that the OpenAxiom way of somehow building Rep into the language, is a good thing. Given the fact, that some representation is needed, it seems reasonable, but it's not necessary.
In Aldor "Rep", "rep", and "per" are just conventions. I would bet that the compiler does nowhere rely on the special identifier "Rep".
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.
