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

[Martin Rubey]

Ralf Hemmecke <address@hidden> writes:

> > f(m: INT, n: INT): PF n == m::PF(n)
that's OK.


> > [f(100, n) for n in primes(1,100)]
that's stupid.

> Ask yourself, what type that list will have and you realise that Aldor will
> reject that its compilation.
Excuse me, Gaby. Sorry about being so stupid.


> > [a::P for P in L]
> That is as problematic as the first list.
"problematic" is an understatement. Sorry.

> > 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?

Quite unbelievable, isn't it? (Maybe I'm being too critical though. I wouldn't
call Basic a "language" in the sense I'm trying to establish here. I probably
should have said: specification)


Martin