>> Wouldn't List(L) or Union(L, Record(ltilde: L, r: L)) be better? Or >> maybe Record(ltilde: L, r: Union(L, failed))? > I don't know, actually. Union(L, List(L)) seemed to best fit the > description of the function as mentioned in the paper. > However, Union(L, Record(ltilde: L, r: L)) also seems good as it offers > extra information about what the 2 elements actually mean in the latter > case.
Now suppose you use this function and you are only interested in the operator, i.e. you don't care whether or not there is a corresponding r. You would then call z: Union(L, Record(ltilde: L, r: L)) := integrate_sols(...) l: L := if z case L then z::L else (z::Record(ltilde: L, r: L)).ltilde That is why I suggested Record(ltilde: L, r: Union(L, failed)). It also better says what actually fails if it does fail. Actually just having List L would work similarly, but I somehow don't like to return a list if it can only have on or two elements. That's somehow misuse. Ralf -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FriCAS - computer algebra system" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/fricas-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
