|Bill Allombert on Thu, 21 Dec 2000 13:26:13 +0100|
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
|Re: finite field|
I have a somewhat off-topic comment: The way function definition are defined in the GP grammar are *bad* I spend hours to explain my Yacc parser how to handle that. This syntax is context-dependent and use "\n" as a terminator... If you start like this f(x)=g(a)=sin(a);<code> There is no way to add code to f after the definition of g... You must use something like f(x)=if(1,g(a)=a+x);g(3) Beside f and g have separated variable scope : ? f(5) %3 = 8 ? g(0) %4 = x ? I don't if there is valuable use of nested definition, I thing that nested definition should at least trigger a warning, and even perhaps be forbidden. On the opposite, add the possibility to affect function to variable Bill.