Re: [Axiom-developer] spad: language and compiler

[Ralf Hemmecke]

> f(m: INT, n: INT): PF n == m::PF(n)
>
> [f(100, n) for n in primes(1,100)]

Ask yourself, what type that list will have and you realise that Aldor 
will reject that its compilation.

> L := [PF(n) for n in primes(1,100)]

That is fine, though.

> [a::P for P in L]

That is as problematic as the first list.

> So, this amounts to clarifying the Aldor User guide. Quite a bit of work has
> been done on this side. Consult the archives or ask specific questions on
> aldor-devel.

address@hidden to be precise.

> BTW, I think that there is no SPAD language, only a SPAD implementation.

That's a good one. There is an implementation of a non-language. How 
could someone have implemented that?

> > It is important we aim at "ideal expression", not just limited to what the
> > current SPAD or Aldor languages accept (hi Martin, Ralf).

I am all with you, Gaby, As you know, I would like to see support for 
formal specification inside the language. An Aldor program should allow 
to be fed to a proof checker, so I would like to be able to express 
invariants and all that stuff formally and not just in the documentation.

> > However, I have the desire to target not just Lisp, but C, C++ and probably
> > Java or C#.  There are interesting problems lurking there, but not none that
> > is urgent.
>
> So, that's a point for FOAM :-)

I also think so. You can completely forget about Aldor if you just want 
to generate different target languages. That is as I understand the foam 
business.

Ralf