HelloRalf, *, Le mar. 1 juil. 2025 à 10:54, 'Ralf Hemmecke' via FriCAS - computer algebra system <[email protected]> a écrit : > > Hi Greg, > > can you be a bit more precise. What is the problem or what is your wish? > S(M)UP or POLY cannot be a problem. They work nicely in FriCAS.
My principal concern is that SUP, or FRAC(*) for example, are too tightly related to Common Lisp (CL) programming structures. I find this counterproductive in terms of language evolution. >From my point of view SPAD is somewhat object oriented but the encapsulation is not respected. Take rational numbers, FRAC(INT), in a lot of places, at default level, a CL CONS is expected. From my point of view this is _highly_ unsatisfactory. I know this is just speculation what I am telling here, but who knows. SUP is also a domain like this. You have it everywhere. I think it's up to the coder to implement or not SUP related things. Or choose the domain(s) he wants to use. I do not want to criticise its implementation, I am sure it was discussed a lot and I like how it is done. BTW SingleAsOrderedSet is for me a shortcut. But, the problem is, again, too CL related things remain for me. I think I will more elaborate later. For now I am finishing a reliable Nemo interface (I encounter some problems sometimes with SBCL). In fact, to be more precise, see TAOCP, some structures in programming langages are well defined, Lisp is a List processing language, and panAxiom as of now relies too a lot of about Lisp. - Greg PS: I encountered, first, at university, for my own, a programming language, LISP : https://www.amazon.com/Parallel-Distributed-Processing-Vol-Foundations/dp/026268053X -- 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 view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fricas-devel/CAHnU2dZVkju214pt%2BoeozEOg5JthexxXXLUfNRqotiC1X6hjBQ%40mail.gmail.com.
