Ralf Hemmecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > | but in case Integer and Set(Integer) are the only things in scope,
| > what | should
| > | | a := {1}
| > | | stand for?
| > Well, I was talking about the interpreter where that is not an issue:
| > domains are loaded automatically on demand (assuming they are
| > exposed, which is the case for List and Integer).
| > I expect the interpreter to take more central role than the compiler.
| > The interpreter is what most OpenAxiom users `see'.
|
| OK, I have no problem if there is a good way of making the syntax in
| the interpreter close to mathematical syntax.
|
| > To answer the above question for the compiler, the above is invokation
| > of brace operator with an integer operand, therefore it should resolve
| > to whatever is in scope -- otherwise error. It contains no syntactic
| > element that indicates that the braces are used to group statements.
|
| Sure there is no semicolon, but I don't understand. (Unfortunately, I
| can only speak of Aldor...). Cannot
|
| {1}
The point is that if the contained single expression is all you have,
there is no point in putting in a brace. If you would like to group
statements, then group statement*S*, and you'll be fine.
As a grown and mathematician, {1} reads more set to me than anything
else.
I understand that Aldor does it differently; I'd like to be convinced
that it is a reasonably common case, as opposed to a degenerate case.
I would like to keep simple things simple, common cases well
supported, and make harder things possible.
-- Gaby
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/
_______________________________________________
open-axiom-devel mailing list
open-axiom-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/open-axiom-devel
