On Wed, Feb 6, 2019 at 4:10 PM Dr. Jürgen Sauermann <mail@jürgen-sauermann.de> wrote: > At this point A has token class Niladic-Defined-Function-Name (page 25), An > attempt to > change that by: > > A←5 > > is therefore explicitly forbidden by the statement on page 67. It has always > bin that way since
And BTW in any functional language these two definitions are completely independent of each other. It's just a coincidence that the same name was used for different binding. Depending on rules and scoping one definition could or could not shadow another, i.e: A←0 A←1 these are different tokens that just happen to reuse the same name. And only if that binding changes a token class, then it should be considered a syntax-error.
