Rep is already built into Spad as implemented by all flavours of AXIOM.
It's build into the compiler or did you mean the language?
When I look at Aldor, then it seems that using the special name "Rep" is
just a convention. On could also replace "Rep" by "Representation" in
all files of the Aldor library including in the definition of rep/per
https://svn.origo.ethz.ch/algebraist/branches/bp-dev/aldor/lib/aldor/include/aldor.as
and (without changing a single line in the aldor compiler) the libaldor
should still compile. Do you have reasons that this is not true?
It's certainly practical what you did for OpenAxiom, better than the
current situation in FriCAS, but I would like to learn whether you think
that Rep must be built into the language.
I think, we had this discussion before. ;-)
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/axiom-developer/2007-07/msg00346.html
Define in aldor.as
macro {
ying x == ((x)@%) pretend Ying;
yang r == ((r)@Ying) pretend %;
}
Then this compiles.
---BEGIN aaa.as
#include "aldor"
#include "aldorio"
Foo: with {
inj: Integer -> %;
get: % -> Integer;
} == add {
Ying == Integer;
import from Ying;
inj(z: Integer): % == yang z;
get(x: %): Integer == ying x;
}
---END aaa.as
What should happen if I write this program in OpenAxiom or FriCAS?
Would it (semantically) be the same as the rep/per/Rep version?
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.
