Martin Rubey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | | > Martin Rubey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | > | > [...] | > | > | By the way, how will this work in the interpreter? I.e., do you think it makes | > | sense to force a rewrite of the currently legal | > | | > | f x == (if zero? x then z := 0 else z := 1/x; g z) | > | | > | to | > | | > | f x == (z := if zero? x then 0 else 1/x; g z) | > | > Which is equivalent to | > | > f x == | > z := zero? x => 0 | > 1/x | > g z | > | > Quite idiomatic in Spad, I would say. | | Yes, so?
Just an observation of an equivalent idiomatic construct, quite to the point. Nothing more. | > | I'm *not* saying that the first form is better, but I doubt that one of the two | > | is *always* better. However, the first form becomes illegal SPAD and | > | interpreted language is to be (as far as possible) identical. | > | > Are you speaking for OpenAxiom case or FriCAS case? | | I had no particular variant in mind. That's the reason for the subject | "desired semantics". Maybe I should have written "desirable semantics" -- I'm | not native English. The subject was clear, the target wasn't which warrants the clarification. | > | want to make a difference there. (I admit I didn't think through why variable | > | overloading is forbidden in Aldor, but so far I didn't need that anyway). | > | > Yeah, habit tends to trump many things. | | What has "not thinking through a possibility because need didn't arise" to do | with habit? "but so far I didn't need that anyway" suggests an idea about the habit. What are the odds that you're going to think through the semantics of something you have not needed anyway? | > | Note that one of the most fundamental reasons why the species (AKA combinat) | > | project doesn't work well with panAxiom / SPAD, is that functions are treated | > | specially in panAxiom / SPAD. | > | | > | If you can come up with a SPAD-compatible replacement for the construct | > | | > | SPECIES == (L: LabelType) -> CombinatorialSpecies L; | > | Plus( | > | F: SPECIES, | > | G: SPECIES | > | )(L: LabelType): CombinatorialSpecies(L) == add [...] | > | | > | you shall be praised and I'll stop talking about language semantics from now on | > | and refer to you instead. | > | > It would be an even better deal if you also included not telling people to | > implement a copy of Aldor, which is a freely available compiler :-) | | OK. But I insist that the replacement works in current SPAD. (Slight | modification of SPAD would be OK, I won't be picky on that. I will be picky on | the semantics of the construct, though.) I'm usually picky on things I acually invest lot of resources in (like raising a child, buying a care, writing a paper, buying a software), not something someone else would do for me as courtesy and for free. -- 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 [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/open-axiom-devel
