Ralf Hemmecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 05/15/2008 11:27 AM, Martin Rubey wrote:
> > Thanks to Gaby, I was looking at the micro-semantics of the loop in the
> > following:
> >
> > lift?(p1:SUPP,p2:SUPP,uterm:UTerm,ldeg:List NNI,
> > lvar:List OV) :
> > Union(s:SUPP,failed:"failed",notCoprime:"notCoprime") ==
> > leadpol:Boolean:=false
> > (listpol,lval):=(uterm.lpol,uterm.lint.first)
> > d:=listpol.first
> > listpol:=listpol.rest
> > nolift:Boolean:=true
> > for uf in listpol repeat
> > --note uf and d not necessarily primitive
> > degree gcd(uf,d) =0 => nolift:=false
> > nolift => ["notCoprime"]
> > f:SUPP:=([p1,p2]$List(SUPP)).(position(uf,listpol))
>
> By which specification is uf allowed in the above line? In Aldor that
> would be forbidden. What about SPAD?
SPAD has no specification, as far as I know. Current behaviour in SPAD is
*roughly* as with "for free uf in ..." in aldor. However, there is a
difference between iteration in lists and in segments:
for i in 1..10 repeat
dosomething
i
will return 11, not 10.
All of this loop business is highly inconsistent in FriCAS and Axiom, eg:
interpreted: loop variables are local
"=>" does not leave loop
compiled (even in interpreter): loop variables are free
"=>" leaves loop if there is only one statement
Martin
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
