Ralf Hemmecke wrote:
>
> On 03/12/2014 06:25 AM, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
> > I have noticed that FriCAS nopile mode currently has different=20
> > behaviour with respect to braces than most other languages using
> > braces: nopile mode requires semicolon after closing brace and
> > effectively disallows semicolon just before closing brace. I am
> > thinking about changing this. ATM I do not know how hard it would be
> > to change and what would be conseqences. Opinions?
>
> I haven't yet used nopile mode since I didn't have the impression that
> it is officially supported. But if you now say, it is, I'd be happy to
> switch to nopile immediately.
Well, nopile supported in the sense that I am commited to fixing
bugs in nopile mode. As you see ATM there are things which
should be changes, so if you want to convert 1000000 lines
of code to nopile mode, then waiting till thins settle may
be good idea. But nopile mode is there to be used and if
it gets more use it will settle faster...
> And yes, semicolon before and after } should be optional.
> If I am not completely wrong, that matches the usage of ; in Aldor.
> Maybe not if a { ... } block appears as a function argument, I haven't
> checked that.
>
> http://www.aldor.org/docs/aldorug.pdf
> AUG p. 11: The semicolons separate expressions. It is permitted, but not
> necessary, to have one after the last expression in a sequence.
>
> AUG p. 32: To make the use of braces as natural as possible, an
> expression in braces may not be used as an argument to an in=0Cfixed
> operator, ...
>
> AUG Chp. 5.9 p.45: An implicit semicolon is assumed after a closing
> brace but not after a closing parenthesis.
>
> For such basic things I would prefer if SPAD and Aldor match up.
OK, so, it looks that block in braces can not be applied to what
follows. In such case implicit semicolon will do no harm.
AFAICS explicit infix operators pose less problem, because
one could supress implicit semicolon before explicit
infix operator (OK, there is problem when operator may be
both infix and prefix). But main problem is due to
application.
I will try to implement Aldor rule, I am not sure if it
will match exactly, but should be close enough to cause
no problem in practice.
--
Waldek Hebisch
[email protected]
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"FriCAS - computer algebra system" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/fricas-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
