Shriram Krishnamurthi <s...@cs.brown.edu> writes: > The Lotka-Volterra example is very helpful, thanks. It is still a bit > unclear from the formatting which part is the Leibniz code. Is it the two > lines marked pp1 and pp2? Are they literal code? I guess I prefer to use a > typewriter face to make verbatim code clear, though that may be at odds > with the script-D.
My current typesetting conventions use a light blue background for code. The main reason is that this convention can be extended to other uses, such as (in my current version) a green background for computed results. > Of more consequence, it would be helpful to know what “happens”. I can > *write* this in Leibniz; that's good. Can I do anything more/else? Maybe > now, or at least perhaps in the future? Can I do a numeric simulation? Will > there be a Runge-Kutta solver? What about discretization issues? Etc. Put > differently, why write it in Leibniz instead of writing it as just a > regular Racket `reactor` program? These are all very good questions, which I hope to have answered in my updated example: http://khinsen.net/leibniz-examples/examples/leibniz-by-example.html > Btw, I'm not entirely sure what the notation ℝp means. Positive real numbers - that's now explained as well. I have been looking at this stuff for too long to notice such oversights. Thanks again for your very useful feedback! - Konrad. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
