Bill Allombert on Fri, 6 Sep 2002 10:40:53 +0200

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

Re: yet another rnfkummer() posting

On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 02:31:06PM -0700, Ilya Zakharevich wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 05, 2002 at 04:41:41PM +0200, Karim BELABAS wrote:
> > Yet another typo. Are we done with regressions now ? I'd like to release a
> > snapshot ASAP.
> BTW, can you check with Math::Pari before release(s)?  It would
> immediately report the mismatches in the signature (when the string
> signature is changed to "a complicated one", but the numeric one is
> not changed to 99).
> Unfortunately, the current version does not report the function *names*, only suspicious signatures.  >>TODO.

I have completly get rid of signatures in the description system.
Instead I use a perl script that compute signatures. This is imbedded
in the script.

Some of the function with prototype "GL" have valence 21, some others 
valence 23. I suppose it is a bug in init.c

Could you check the script ? The only mandatory rule for PARI/GP are:
 * Currently the following functions have no code word:
 * 'O' 50, 'if' 80, 'until' 82, 'while' 81, 'global' 88,
 * Valence 0 reserved for functions without mandatory args.
 * Valence 99 reserved for codes which do not correspond 1-to-1 to valences.
 * Any other valence (what to do with 0?) should correspond to exactly
 *  one code.
 So you can change the other valence as you want them.