[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Axiom-developer] RE: algebra Makefiles with explicit dependencies,

From: Stephen Wilson
Subject: Re: [Axiom-developer] RE: algebra Makefiles with explicit dependencies, bootstrap, fixed-points etc.
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 18:39:55 -0500
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i


On Fri, Jan 14, 2005 at 03:20:12PM -0500, Bill Page wrote:
> What is the current status of your effort to update the
> bootstrap files? Having update the bootstrap and run the
> fixedPoint interactions, exactly which files still show
> differences during the first iteration?

After last weekend I have been playing `catch up' on a few things. In
a few more hours I should have opened up this weekend so I can delve
back into this issue. 

> It is a pity that these concepts were not described in more detail
> anywhere else in the main body of the book. It seems strange for
> them to be only here in the "glossary".

I agree. I compleatly missed them.

> Although the emphasis here is on "dynamic" to you think that
> domain extensions of this kind might be involved in the kind
> of propagations that you have observed?

We need to go with whatever clues we have. Given what we know, this is
a line of enquiry which stands a good chance of being productive. I
dont see how code is compiling with the current bootstrap for SINT
aside from the resolution mechanism kicking in and getting a handle on
Monoids `one?' in order for SINT to satisfy its exports. However, the
BINFILE example with the `<' -> QSLESSP transformation has me
baffled. We have on the first iteration:

         ((OR (QSLESSP |x| 0) (< 255 |x|))

and then on the second

        ((OR (QSLESSP |x| 0) (QSLESSP 255 |x|))

So, as we know from Tim's analysis of the CHAR domain, the QSLESSP is
put on the property list for the symbol representing SINT's `<'. The
replacement is happening on the first pass for a comparison against 0,
but not against 255. Is it possible for `255 < x' the left hand side
is interpreted as a POSINT or INT first, and an implicit coercion is
being performed on `x'? I have no idea why the type resolution is
happening differently during the second pass. I cant explain it given
what we have come to discover thus far.

Regardless, these are just musings for now. I should have a lot of
time this weekend to help figure this out.

> BTW, how are those notes coming along? :)

Now that I have my head above the water, soon now, I hope :)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]