> The problem is that data has "wrong" tags. First, Lisp types are > different than FriCAS types.
I think that is clear. > Even in cases when at first glance Lisp and FriCAS types look the > same, there may be significant difference. For example FriCAS > scripted symbols are not Lisp symbols. OK, but why would that be a problem for a Maybe domain? Doesn't it just say that Maybe(Symbol) has to have a special treatment? > And FriCAS considers lists > and symbols as disjoint, but in Lisp NIL is _both_ symbol and a > list. Again, that can be properly implemented by choosing an appropriate representation for Maybe(T) when T is Symbol or T is List(..). > In BOOT code where we use Lisp semantics we have bunch of bugs: > we can not correctly handle NIL as a symbol, because empty list > meaning forces interpretation incompatible with semantics of > symbols. That can be a problem, but why not try (as Qian already started) and introduce a Maybe domain and see how far we can get and what benefit that has? Qian can certainly do this on a git branch until it is ready to be merged. 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 https://groups.google.com/group/fricas-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
