On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: > ... > Another example: Consider the function leftLcm from > NonCommutativeOperatorDivision(P,F) where > P: MonogenicLinearOperator(F) > F: Field > > the function definition is: > > leftLcm(a,b) == > a = 0 =>b > b = 0 =>a > b0 := b > u := monomial(1,0)$P > v := 0 > while leadingCoefficient b ~= 0 repeat > qr := leftDivide(a,b) > (a, b) := (b, qr.remainder) > (u, v) := (u*qr.quotient+v, u) > b0*u > > > The problem is the definition of the local variable v: > > v := 0 >
I like this example, although now I believe also your first example. > There are four candidates in scope: > > 0: P > 0: F > 0: NonNegativeInteger > 0: Integer > > (the right answer is 0@P). > So it is a coincidence that the compiler happens to choose 0@P or that the representation of all of these candidates is the same so that it does not matter? Regards, Bill Page ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The demand for IT networking professionals continues to grow, and the demand for specialized networking skills is growing even more rapidly. Take a complimentary Learning@Cisco Self-Assessment and learn about Cisco certifications, training, and career opportunities. http://p.sf.net/sfu/cisco-dev2dev _______________________________________________ open-axiom-devel mailing list open-axiom-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/open-axiom-devel
