[Maxima-bugs] [ maxima-Bugs-917283 ] Comment syntax confused, undocumented

[SourceForge.net <no...@so...>]

Bugs item #917283, was opened at 2004-03-16 06:04
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by robert_dodier
You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=917283&group_id=4933

Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread,
including the initial issue submission, for this request,
not just the latest update.
Category: Documentation
Group: None
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 2
Submitted By: Stavros Macrakis (macrakis)
Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Summary: Comment syntax confused, undocumented

Initial Comment:
The comment syntax /* ... */ is used in many places in 
the documentation, but nowhere explicitly described.

The sequence /*/ seems to parse as a comment:

(C23) a/*/+b;
(D23)    b + a

I think that is a bug.  Two *'s should be required.

Peculiarly, it can be redefined as an infix operator:

(C24) infix("/*/")$
(C29) a/*/+b;
(D29)    a /*/ b

It is even possible to redefine "/*" as an infix operator!

(C31) infix("/*");
(D31)    "/*"
(C32) a /* b;
(D32)    a /* b

This doesn't seem like a good idea....

        -s


----------------------------------------------------------------------

>Comment By: Robert Dodier (robert_dodier)
Date: 2005-09-27 21:36

Message:
Logged In: YES 
user_id=501686

In fact Maxima lets me do this ...

  matchfix ("/*", "*/");

  /* 1, 2, 3, 4 */;

  :lisp $%  => (($/* SIMP) 1 2 3 4)

I agree that /*/ should not parse as a comment, but I'm
inclined to allow /*/, /*, and /* ... */ as operators. I
like Maxima's laissez faire attitude.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

You can respond by visiting: 
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=104933&aid=917283&group_id=4933