Hi there,
To clarify: FriCAS *was* an optional package for a long time. It was
downgraded to "experimental" because some doctests of the interface to sage
didn't work at a specific time, and all packages having this problem were
treated like that.
The difference between "experimental" and
Glad to see Martin Rubey is still interested in FriCAS.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"FriCAS - computer algebra system" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to
Interesting. There are voices to make FriCAS an optional package in Sage.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/sage-devel/cHkVjFt1pIY
Ralf
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"FriCAS - computer algebra system" group.
To unsubscribe from this group
> I don't understand. We need a function Maybe(R) -> R, no?
Side note: from Intuitionistic type theory, such total function
is impossible. Because Maybe(R)->R is Union(R, "failed")->R
aka 'OR(R, "failed")->R', such signature corresponds to proposition
"if x \/ y then x", which is false.
--
On 09/26/2017 01:53 PM, oldk1331 wrote:
>> I would rather add a function retractable?: % -> Boolean that does
>> exactly such a check and transform the specification into:
>
> Errr... Wouldn't that be something like retractIfCan : % -> Maybe R
>
> Which is a total function.
Of course you can
> I would rather add a function retractable?: % -> Boolean that does
> exactly such a check and transform the specification into:
Errr... Wouldn't that be something like
retractIfCan : % -> Maybe R
Which is a total function.
Which means Maybe is more fundamental than RetractableTo.
Which
On 09/26/2017 12:27 PM, oldk1331 wrote:
>> Really? Yes, it can, but it is a matter of specification. If you declare
>> that retract(x) is only applicable if not(failed?(x)) holds, then there
>> is no need for an additional error checking. Such error checking would
>> only be a safety net, but not
> Really? Yes, it can, but it is a matter of specification. If you declare
> that retract(x) is only applicable if not(failed?(x)) holds, then there
> is no need for an additional error checking. Such error checking would
> only be a safety net, but not necessary by specification.
'retract'
On 09/26/2017 11:10 AM, oldk1331 wrote:
> Bill, I changed my mind about retractIfCan/RetractableTo, so Bill,
> Ralf and me should on the same page.
> About 'coerce : R -> Maybe R', this auto-coercion only works at
> interpreter, right?
Yes.
> So when writing Spad, one should explicitly use
Bill, I changed my mind about retractIfCan/RetractableTo, so
Bill, Ralf and me should on the same page.
About 'coerce : R -> Maybe R', this auto-coercion only works at
interpreter, right? So when writing Spad, one should explicitly
use 'wrap' (or 'coerce', but 'wrap' is more clear).
About
On 09/26/2017 03:48 AM, oldk1331 wrote:
> I tried to replace 'subtractIfCan' as a starter. It turns out more
> difficult than I thought.
>
> https://github.com/oldk1332/fricas/commit/36c1e89856fdd0b634993cc0d202f5fcfd2818ef
>
> The change itself is not difficult, but there are many compile
11 matches
Mail list logo
