On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Ralf Hemmecke wrote: > On 01/10/2012 06:27 PM, Waldek Hebisch wrote: >> >> Ralf Hemmecke wrote: >>> >>> do you see hope to weaken the precedence of : so that I would be >>> able to write >>> >>> (x: X) foo (y: Y): Z == .... >>> >>> instead of >>> >>> ((x: X) foo (y: Y)): Z == .... >>> >> >> AFAICS now you can write: >> >> (x: X foo y: Y): Z == >> >> I probably would like you precendence more then current one, but >> other folks may have different opinions. > > OK. But *who* are these people? In case someone strictly prefers the > current version, he/she should speak up *now*! > I really really want that change! >
Sorry, Ralf, but I am one who prefers it the way it is now. It seems very natural to me that : binds very tightly. This looks nice, tidy and Axiom-friendly (fewer parenthesis!) to me: (x: X foo y: Y): Z == ... I read the Z is the type of the function applied to the whole expression inside ( ... ). With this notation: (x: X) foo (y: Y): Z == I (naturally?) focus on (y: Y): Z and wonder what this means. In Aldor I usually end up writing: ((x: X) foo (y: Y)): Z == ... because it does not otherwise work the way I expect. > >> And I a bit affraid that this can have undesirable conseqences in >> other places. > > > OK, maybe one has to modify some .spad files in certain places, > but I'm willing to do this on a branch and see how far I can get. > (Maybe I should first restart my testsuite stuff, though.) > Why are you so motivated to make this change? > ... Regards, Bill Page. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "FriCAS - computer algebra system" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/fricas-devel?hl=en.
