On 06/10/2014 01:46 AM, Waldek Hebisch wrote: > Escaping means /\ is no longer treated as operator, so infix > syntax does not work.
OK, that's clear. >> Would it be hard to recognize +, -, *, \/, /\, etc. in places like >> /\: (A, B) -> C > Not very hard, but would introduce ugly irregularity to syntax > (and parser). Why is this irregular? I rather find the need to escape, i.e. writing _/_\: (A, B) -> C _+: (%, %) -> % pretty ugly and unnecessary. Aldor has already solved that issue. >> a /\ b >> >> without the need to escape them? > > That was regression, due to changes in Spad scanner. Fixed now. Thanks for the fix. Still, I'd also like no need for escape in the signature notation. Ralf PS: If you feel like fixing precedence of ":" in expressions like (x: %) + (y: %): % == ... I'd appreciate that. -- 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.
