Hi, Oleg. On Sat, 23 May 2020 at 18:45, Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]> wrote:
> Dario, > > I'm afraid I can't help. Firstly, I do not really understand your > questions. > But even if I understood, I am not sure I could answer authoritatively. > No worries, I'm sure that it's just my lack of understanding making my questions twisted. I appreciate your time answering me. > > On 05/22, Dario Sanfilippo wrote: > > > > On Fri, 22 May 2020 at 20:22, Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 05/22, Dario Sanfilippo wrote: > > > > > > > > Sorry for the confusion. What I wanted to ask is: why aren't the > extra > > > > parentheses making a difference? Because (0, (1,2,3)) is parsed as > > > > ((0),((1,2,3)), right? > > > > > > I missed a parenthesis, I meant that (0, (1,2,3)) is parsed as ((0), > > ((1,2,3))) > > Why do you think so? If I'm not wrong, a similar behaviour was decribed by Julius in his section on *count* and *take*: https://ccrma.stanford.edu/~jos/aspf/Understanding_count_take_math_lib.html. > OK, please consider > > f(((x,y))) = x+y; > f( (x,y) ) = x-y; > > process(x,y) = f((x,y)); > > note the compiler warning: > > WARNING : shadowed pattern-matching rule: (<x>,<y>) => x,y : -; > previous rule was: (<x>,<y>) => x,y : +; > > See? The extra parentheses make no difference. > And why do you think they should? IMO, this would be insane. Suppose you > change the compiler so that ba.count(((1,2,3))) returns 1. Now, what should > this program > > L1 = 1,2,3; > L2 = (1,2,3); > > process = ba.count(L1), ba.count((L1)), > ba.count(L2), ba.count((L2)); > > output? > I would have guessed that ba.count(L1) would have triggered an error, as ba.count(1,2,3) does. Then I would have guessed 3 3 1 for the others. > > Or this one > > process = ba.count(par(i,3,i)), ba.count((par(i,3,i))); > > ? > Error and 3. > > The current rules are at least clear/understandable, and whatever you or > me think it is too late to change them. > Yes, I understand that. If we could have more documentation on the eval rules as Julius suggests that would be great. Thanks again to all of you for your time. Dario
_______________________________________________ Faudiostream-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/faudiostream-users
