RE: [Axiom-developer] Re: )set functions compile on

[Martin Rubey]

Page, Bill writes:
 > On Wednesday, August 31, 2005 2:50 AM Martin Rubey wrote:
 > > 
 > > But, on the other hand, I think we should really track down the
 > > cause of the frequent failures when working without )se fu co on

 > > I suspect that this could lead to some insights about how the
 > > interpreter differs from the compiler [...]
 > 
 > Be careful here not to confuse the reference to 'compile' in
 > ')set function compile on' with the )compile command. 

Thanks for the clarification. Quite true. So the goal really should read

"to make the semantics of all the same."

I'm aware of the fact that there are fundamental differences between 
interpreter / SPAD / Aldor which are not bugs. But I think, in order to make
Axiom interesting for more people, SPAD should go away (not #pile as an
alternative *syntax* though!) and the semantics of the interpreter should be as
close as possible to the semantics of the compiler.

First step: document interpreter and compiler.

Second step might be to incorporate the "extend" keyword of Aldor, and the
possibility to have dependent types usable (not yet definable, maybe) in Axiom.

Would it be a fitting *challenge* for comp.lang.lisp to devise a *simple*
compiler for the Aldor language as described in the Aldor User Guide? Maybe
with a price of 500$?

Martin