On 11/08/2015 02:18 PM, Prof. Dr. Johannes Grabmeier privat wrote: > Thanks, but I am not sure about that: > > "I think that the compilation should even fail if not all functions > are implemented. " > > There can be 50 functions missing, when I start to implement > something new. So I would rather be happy if I get a list what is > missing and don't have to write 50 dummy functions first of all.
Yes, I see the advantage for a programmer if it is initially not required to implement everything. One usually wants to see results and test ideas before making things fully beautiful. Then let me suggest to have an option to )compile. Something like )compile foo.spad )strict that would follow my requirement. But, in fact, your suggestion with listing the functions, is perhaps already enough to remind the programmer of what is still to do. > To approach Ralf's requirement, it would be necessary to require a > unique construction function for a dummy value for every domain. That is what I gave already. >> foo(x: X): Y == error "foo is not implemented" And if the list of missing functions that you require at the end of the compilation is exactly something like that, one could simply cut&paste that into the .spad file. So that would solve the Eclipse problem. Ralf -- 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.
