> 'isLegitimateMode' claims that 'Polynomial(Polynomial(Integer))' is > bad, which is understandable, because users could easily get > confused by variables ending at wrong level. OTOH such domain > seem fine as representation for some other domain.
I guess at SPAD level POLY POLY INT is fine, right? Having two sets of infinite variables, shouldn't be a problem. It's again this automatic type injection that gets into the way. In fact, it should also not be a problem at interpreter level, but I guess it is hard to teach the interpreter to shout in such ambiguous cases if the user does not specify to which level the variable belongs. If the interpreter would always chose a "cheap" empbedding then 'x :: POLY(POLY INT) should end up as a variable in the outer POLY and only via 'x :: POLY(INT) :: POLY(POLY INT) one would get something inside. Probably doable, but still confusing, since printing the variable from this first and second option would be indistinguishable. Ralf PS: I'm still a fan of a more restricted form of automatic type coercions. ;-) Maybe even user controllable. -- 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.
