different user language (was RE: stacking two matrices)

There are many possibilities, but if you adopt almost any of the
conventional programming languages, you will have to face a number of issues
not addressed in traditional languages.

Few languages allow for uninterpreted symbols, e.g.  y:= x^2+1  where x is
"unknown".

There are parsers in lisp for Mathematica, Reduce, Axiom. Tying the MockMMa
parser to Maxima would not be difficult. If you don't mind writing Sin[x]
for sin(x), and the semantics were matched up, you could take advantage of
some neat application programs. 

If it were so easy to define the perfect CAS surface language for
mathematics, it would be surprising that it has eluded people for so long.

an object-oriented version of lisp works for me, but it doesn't pass the
first test of most users... it doesn't look like infix mathematics.



RJF
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: maxima-bounces at math.utexas.edu 
> [mailto:maxima-bounces at math.utexas.edu] On Behalf Of Peter Danenberg
> Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2007 9:14 PM
> To: maxima at math.utexas.edu
> Subject: Re: [Maxima] stacking two matrices
> 
> On Sat, Oct 27, 2007 at 01:18:55PM -0600, Robert Dodier wrote:
> > One way to get a different user language for Maxima could be to run
> > an interpreter for another language implemented in Common Lisp . . .
> 
> What about--gasp!--Scheme? Pseudoscheme* looks interesting, though it
> only implements "some lexically apparent tail recursions as loops."
> 
> -----------
> * http://mumble.net/~jar/pseudoscheme/
> _______________________________________________
> Maxima mailing list
> Maxima at math.utexas.edu
> http://www.math.utexas.edu/mailman/listinfo/maxima
>