Martin Rubey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...]
| > Many people believe that the two-level languages of Axiom is a strength: one | > for library development, and one for interpreter. Large scale programming | > (libraries) tend to impose different requirements than small scale | > programming (interactive uses). | | Although this may be true, I had no problem at all doing rather large scale | projects in SPAD and Aldor, and no problem at all using the interpreter. Not | quite: for me it's a huge drawback of the interpreter that I cannot define | (parametrised) packages. That is an orthogonal issue. [...] | To be honest, I think relying on these scoping rules seems to me bad style | anyway, so the rules shouldn't matter too much. Giving a warning would be good | though. That would be the value of waring over an error? | I guess that a few places you (Gaby) discovered when making the change | in the compiler concerning locality of looping variables are mistakes, maybe | I'll look into a few. Existing algebras only provide shared evidence. I tend to look beyond existing common algebras. But, I acknowledge that other people tend to focus solely on the current algebra. | | In any case, | | + uf: SUP | for uf in listpol repeat | --note uf and d not necessarily primitive | degree gcd(uf,d) =0 => nolift:=false | | looks very strange to me. I'd really prefer | | for free uf in listpol repeat | --note uf and d not necessarily primitive | degree gcd(uf,d) =0 => nolift:=false What is the fundamental difference? -- Gaby ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ open-axiom-devel mailing list open-axiom-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/open-axiom-devel
