Hi Waldek,
maybe, you think differently, but I think this is very valuable
historical information, so either
(A) bugs should get a number and this explanation should also live in
the "resolved" section of the bugtracker *and* the commit should carry a
reference to the corresponding bugtracke
Martin Rubey wrote:
> (1) -> PAIR ==> List INT
>Type: Void
> (2) -> Combinations(n:PI, k:PI): List PAIR ==l := [elements e for e in
> enumerate()$SetOfMIntegersInOneToN(2, n)]
>Function declaration Combinations : (Positive
File a bugreport. ;-)
Ralf
On 02/26/2010 12:26 PM, Martin Rubey wrote:
Ralf Hemmecke writes:
Actually, I believe this construction.
for d in ..6 by 2
should be immediately rejected by the compiler and also by the
interpreter.
I agree. I should have added: it was a typo. But sometime
Ralf Hemmecke writes:
> Actually, I believe this construction.
>
> for d in ..6 by 2
>
> should be immediately rejected by the compiler and also by the
> interpreter.
I agree. I should have added: it was a typo. But sometimes adapting
the algebra just hides the compiler/interpreter bug.
Mar
[VertexSet(2*d,4) for d in ..6 by 2]
Can you say where this segment should start? 0, 1, 2, 100?
Who, do you think, is going to throw in the starting point. Is that
defined somewhere?
In my case it works if I replace ..6 by 1..6 and 2..6.
Ralf
(7) -> [VertexSet(2*d,4) for d in 1..6 by 2]
Some addon...
The definition of UniversalSegment allows a missing upper bound, i.e.
..
can be used as a postfix operator, but I haven't seen a definition where
the lower bound is missing. And this would also be strange, since
segments are used for iteration and they increase by the value af
(1) -> PAIR ==> List INT
Type: Void
(2) -> Combinations(n:PI, k:PI): List PAIR ==l := [elements e for e in
enumerate()$SetOfMIntegersInOneToN(2, n)]
Function declaration Combinations : (PositiveInteger,PositiveInteger
