[Axiom-developer] Re: .spad, .input, .as and autocoercion

[Martin Rubey]

William Sit <address@hidden> writes:

> Martin Rubey wrote:
> 
> > I have used Aldor, SPAD, the Aldor interpreter and the axiom interpreter 
> > quite
> > intensively, and found the combination Aldor + axiom interpreter formidable.
> 
> Since you do find the axiom interpreter helpful and indeed getting the types
> right (your examples are not particularly impressive to me because the names
> and signatures are quite unique and only the arguments need be matched), why
> aren't you and Ralf in favor of improving the compiler so that the compiler 
> can
> be equally helpful? 

I am *very* much in favour of improving the compiler so that it can be helpful,
but only by giving appropriate hints, as Ralf pointed out already.  Since I
doubt that we will be able to exclude the possibility of having two different
coercion paths, however, I want that code in the library is unambigous, and
cannot be made ambigous by "extend"ing a domain or by adding a package or a
domain.

This problem does not (or hardly) exist in the interpreter, since the axiom
library will probably not change during a mathematical experiment.

> Why should the human programmer be forced to manually perform what the
> interpreter is doing so well (and most likely can be even improved)?

Because experimentation and design are two distinct steps of engineering.

> Currently, to translate from interpreter language to compiler language, one
> needs a combination of ")show," ")display," ")set mess bottom on," ")set
> message auto on," and hyperdoc searches to identify packages and
> coercions. This process is repeated every time there is a compiler
> complaint. This is time that could be spent for documentation instead.

Try using Aldor!  Even with the axiom library, you will find that )sh, )di,
etc. are rarely needed, since the compiler tells you quite exactly what he is
missing.  The combinat experience was very enlightening for me.


Martin