Ralf Hemmecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > The return type clearly says what the function returns, no dispute > > there. How do you feel about > > > > f(a: Integer): (Integer, DoubleFloat) == { > > b: Integer == 2; > > b: DoubleFloat == 7.0; > > (b, b); > > (b, b); > > > > Is it OK?
No. > But actually, the program should be OK for each statement. And so, since the > compiler has no chance to figure out just one type for each of the b's in the > first "(b, b)", that program must be rejected. I also vote ;-) for reject, because the validity would depend on the cleverness of the compiler. In fact, how could the compiler possibly now that a statement that it cannot assign a type to is non-side-effecting? Martin ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ open-axiom-devel mailing list open-axiom-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/open-axiom-devel