William Stein <[email protected]> writes:
>> I admit however, that calling FriCAS from sage is very awkward, since
>> the interface is absolutely dumb.
>
> Could you please give constructive criticism instead? I for one
> appreciate the work Bill Page did at Sage Days 2 to write an axiom
> interface. I think enumerating some specific criticism of it would be
> more useful. If you've already done so, maybe you could post a link?
I also think that Bill Page did and does a good job.
The main thing that's missing is a proper way to translate between
fricas and sage types.
Eg: (without understanding the issues involved...)
>> sage: fricas.integrate('sec(t)*tan(t)','t=0..%pi/3','"noPole"')
>> 1
why is it, that I can't write
fricas.integrate(sec(t)*tan(t),(t,0,%pi/3),"noPole")
(and I think that "SegmentBinding", i.e., something of the form
t=a..
or
t=a..b
is something missing from sage. On the other hand, "=" seems to be
reserved for keyword arguments and assignment in python, except that
sage uses it at least in "limit" also in the sense of an equation. I
would have expected "==".)
FriCAS has a type called InputForm, which (in an ideal world) captures
the semantics of any given object. (I guess, it's somewhat similar to
the pickle mechanism?)
I think we would need a FriCAS-SAGE programmer, who implements a
dictionary style translation between the two type systems. But maybe
I'm too optimistic here...
Martin
--
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support
URL: http://www.sagemath.org
