Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
>
> Waldek Hebisch <[email protected]> writes:
>
> | I would avoid '=='. Currently when '==' defines function with
> | no arguments and no mode it is conveted to a macro ('==>').
> | Given that semantics of '==>' is quite different of _expected_
> | semantics of '==' this is rather weird irregularity.
>
> I would think the opposite: if there is there is no modemap or type
> declaration, then it surely can only be observed locally and it has all
> the semantics of a local constant, or a macro! I suspect that -may-
> also have been the reasoning behind Aldor's choice.
>
This is reasonable choice if you _have to_ give meaning to '=='
in such cases. But signaling error seems better.
For example, look at:
dummy == new()$SE :: F
in combfunc.spad.pamphlet. This is _very_ unlike constants.
IMHO explicitly writing
dummy ==> new()$SE :: F
would be much clearer.
--
Waldek Hebisch
[email protected]
--
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.
