Re: finite field

[Bill Allombert <allomber@math.u-bordeaux.fr>]

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.