Andrey G. Grozin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I disagree. Only the user can decide *which* consistent state [s]he wants. > Suppose there is a code fragment > n:=1 > x:=f(n) > n:=2 > y:=f(n) > Do you consider the state of Axiom after it inconsistent? I don't. This is > an imperative language, after all. If the user edits the first line to > read > n:=3 > and then re-executes the second line, are you sure the user wants to > re-execute the fourth line too? I am not. I'd hate it if the system would > make such decisions for me.
You have done two things:
1) edit a line
2) re-evaluate an *un-edited* line
With lazy re-evaluation, (2) would never be needed. (and in fact,
doesn't make sense because the output would always be identical)
When I have said inconsistent, I mean that if I re-execute the commands
in order, I get something different than currently appears as output in
the worksheet.
In fact perhaps the concept of "executing" a block should go as well.
There would only be a concept of "done-editing" a block, at which point
the interface would go evaluate whatever was necessary. One would never
go back and re-evaluate something unless an edit was made on *that*
line.
--
Cheers,
Bob McElrath [Univ. of California at Davis, Department of Physics]
"One of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen
these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding
fathers used in the great struggle for independence." --Charles A. Beard
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
