> Really? Yes, it can, but it is a matter of specification. If you declare > that retract(x) is only applicable if not(failed?(x)) holds, then there > is no need for an additional error checking. Such error checking would > only be a safety net, but not necessary by specification.
'retract' should always check for error, if doesn't check for error, it should be given a different name. > Yes, x::R would look nicer, but I don't think that retract(x) is so bad. > Yes, ::R doesn't look so bad. AFAIK, the rule is that :: translates into > "coerce", not "retract" (in the compiler; the interpreter is a different > thing). You are right, :: in compiler is always 'coerce'. So use :: for retraction is inappropriate. BTW, the compiler errors I encountered are mostly caused by the inline optimization, I'm still trying. -- 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.
