> Vanuxem Grégory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > If someone can try to compile, in a fresh new axiom session,
> > the attached file. I get a segmentation fault.
> >
> > )abbrev domain MYIARR MyIndexedOneDimensionalArray
> > MyIndexedOneDimensionalArray(S:Type, mn:Integer):_
> > Exports == Implementation where
> > Qsetelt ==> SETELT$Lisp
> > Qnew ==> GETREFV$Lisp
> >
> > Exports == OneDimensionalArrayAggregate S with
> >
> ...
On August 19, 2006 1:00 PM Martin Rubey
> Yes it is. However, I think that the macro definitions should
> all be indented by the same amount. I.e., try
>
> )abbrev domain MYIARR MyIndexedOneDimensionalArray
> MyIndexedOneDimensionalArray(S:Type, mn:Integer):_
> Exports == Implementation where
> Qsetelt ==> SETELT$Lisp
> Qnew ==> GETREFV$Lisp
>
> Exports == OneDimensionalArrayAggregate S with
> ...
On August 19, 2006 1:15 PM Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
>
> ...
> Anyway that is a very good example why pile syntax is
> terrible.
>
Ralf, I am sorry but your comment makes be rather angry. :(
I cannot understand why an otherwise very intelligent
programmer would blame the language for how a compiler
handles a syntax error. Arrrgh!
(: Of course I mean this a the spirit of friendly criticism... :)
In my opinion the notation without the {}; decoration is still
superior even when the compiler writers get it wrong. There are
several other instances when SPAD does not consistently implement
the language.
If you compile this in #pile mode in Aldor you get the expected
result.
http://wiki.axiom-developer.org/SandBoxPileNotation
_______________________________________________
Axiom-developer mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
