Ralf Hemmecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | >> If I have something like | >> | >> | >> j: Integer := 0 | >> for i in 1..5 repeat | >> j: Integer := i2 | >> output(j::OutputForm)$OutputPackage | >> | >> that should not be allowed at all. | > Why? | | ---> The answer has already been given below. ;-) | | >> Since it declares j twice in the same | >> scope (yes, you caught me with that "declaration" stuff). | | > But, why do you think they are the same scope? | | Because that is what I read from Section 8.1 AUG: | | Note that the last two bind names in particular positions in the | expression, and **do not form general scope levels**. | | Do you read that differently?
You're readint the Aldor specification to me; I'm talking from `language design' principle poit of view. When I asked why, I'm not just expecting `because AUG says so'; but a rationale of why it should be so. | >> As I understand you openaxiom now introduces a new scope for the for-body. | | > A loop body, where explicit for or a collect or a reduce implicitly | > introduces a scope to shield local computations from enclosing scope. | | BTW, I didn't say that this is a bad thing. It only is not the way | that Aldor is specified. OK. I think only Aldor can be a perfect imitation of Aldor. -- 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
