Gaby,
I am concerned about the internal representation of the InputForm
value. I presume that the display (rendering) of InputForm is
essential 1-1 with it's representation - syntax aside. Why is it so
much more complicated than it needs to be? Compare it to the follow
InputForm values generated by parse:
(1) -> parseString("x^1.0")$InputForm
(1) x^($elt(Float,float)(1,0,10))
Type: InputForm
(2) -> parseString("x^1.2")$InputForm
(2) x^($elt(Float,float)(12,-1,10))
Type: InputForm
Why don't we get something like this back from (4), below?
Also, I note that '$elt(Float,float)' is not quite an accepted syntax
for package calls in the interpreter. The $ needs to be escaped:
(3) -> x^(_$elt(Float,float)(12,-1,10))
5+-+
(3) x\|x
Type: Expression Float
Regards,
Bill Page.
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Bill Page wrote:
>
>> Can anyone explain this odd result? Or this even one?
>>
>> (4) -> (x^1.0)::InputForm
>>
>> (4)
>> (/ (+ (+ (float 0 0 2) (* (float 1 0 2) x)) (float 0 0 2)) (float 1 0 2))
>>
>> Type: InputForm
>>
>
> Is your issue about the internal representation or about the display?
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
open-axiom-devel mailing list
open-axiom-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/open-axiom-devel
