> You should have tries TEST OK now I tried your program from http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_name=9qtzgzc3yz.fsf%40aquin.mat.univie.ac.at
With considering "for e in ..." as equivalent to "for free e in ..." I would have guessed right for foo1 and foo2, but I would have failed misserably for foo3. > 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 I still that hope some day there will not be such differences between the compiler and interpreter language anymore. But if that is the current semantic of SPAD, then lift?$PGCD as mentioned earlier in this thread behaves as it should (as far as one could guess without a clear specification of that function). ... Scary! Ralf ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
