Ralf Hemmecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > f(m: INT, n: INT): PF n == m::PF(n) that's OK.
> > [f(100, n) for n in primes(1,100)] that's stupid. > Ask yourself, what type that list will have and you realise that Aldor will > reject that its compilation. Excuse me, Gaby. Sorry about being so stupid. > > [a::P for P in L] > That is as problematic as the first list. "problematic" is an understatement. Sorry. > > BTW, I think that there is no SPAD language, only a SPAD implementation. > > That's a good one. There is an implementation of a non-language. How could > someone have implemented that? Quite unbelievable, isn't it? (Maybe I'm being too critical though. I wouldn't call Basic a "language" in the sense I'm trying to establish here. I probably should have said: specification) Martin _______________________________________________ Axiom-developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/axiom-developer
