On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:51 PM, Serge D. Mechveliani <[email protected]> wrote: > ... > one needs to guess of all these clever coerce, convert, unparse, > and also of introducing InputForm, where this InputForm seems to have > no relevance to the subject. >
It seems very odd to me that you reach this conclusion. To me InputForm seems most central to what you appear to be trying to do although perhaps I do not fully understand your intention. > 1. Is there possible a simpler code? > 2. If it is not, can the compiler be improved in this point? > I think there is still a considerable gap in understanding the overall design of Axiom. Of course this is large part the fault of the available documentation. > I suspect that all such questions about improving the compiler need to > be consdered in the frame of Aldor, and one could write things in Aldor, > with using the FriCAS library. > (?) Yes. > But > a) I do not know, of whether Aldor is currently workable in this mode, Yes. I find writing code in Aldor much easier the SPAD, mostly due to the error messages. Once code works in Aldor, back porting it to SPAD is much easier. > b) it seems, there are some problems with openness and license. Yes. Whether this is important or not depends on you objective. Regards, Bill Page. -- 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.
