It seems that my macro/rule scheme has hit a bump in the road. When I
run the small test program below the second evocation "ex_1(m+n)" posts:
"There are 1 exposed and 0 unexposed library operations named ...."
I think that applyRules([ex..],xx,1) doesn't like rules that have more
than one rule. This does seem to contradict the intention (?).
BTW: the "macro" keyword can be left out and it still bombs.
Notice that it works okay with the second rule commented out.
+++
)expose APPRULE
++ Setup
ex_rule := rule
a+b == plus
++ a-b == minus
ex_1_rule := rule
a+b == plus
a-b == minus
macro ex(xx) == applyRules([ex_rule],xx,1)
macro ex_1(xx) == applyRules([ex_1_rule],xx,1)
++ Test
ex(m+n)
ex_1(m+n)
+++
Built on:
LinuxMint 17 (qiana)
Gnome:3.8.4 (Ubuntu 2015-12-02)
Kernel: 3.13.0-24-generic (#47-Ubuntu SMP Fri May 2 23:30:00 UTC 2014)
GCC: 4.8 (x86_64-linux-gnu)
Xorg: 1.15.1 (12 February 2015 02:49:29PM)
I can forward configure and make log files if wanted.
--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/fricas-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
