On Jul 6, 7:58 pm, rjf <fate...@gmail.com> wrote: > the way most programming language grammars work, those based on so- > called context-free grammars, it is important to avoid ambiguity, and > to have constructions that can be parsed regardless of context. > thus > x+y means the same as > (x)+y in most programming languages. > > now consider > integrate(sin(x),x) > integrate(sin(x),(x)) > > are they the same??
Yes. > or is > integrate(sin(x),(x)) --> error, you must provide ... integrate(sin > (x),(x,lower_bound,upper_bound)) ?? > > There are many texts in the area of compiler technology, parsing, > programming language design, etc. > > I suggest that the Sage project identify someone who knows more about > computer science, e.g. an undergraduate BS degree in computer science, > and run such questions by him/her. Thanks for the condescension. We appreciate it, really. > Consistency is more generally enforced by having a syntactically well- > defined language, Like Python, in which (x) is the same as x. If you want a one-element 'list', you use (x,) > not by coming up with analogous examples and making > them match. I don't think anyone was suggesting this. Should we move this discussion to sage-flame now? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
