Re: [q-lang-users] Polynomial module.

[Albert G. <Dr....@t-...>]

Rob Hubbard wrote:
> I would like to use inline "var"s. Unfortunately, that might then hide
> another undeclared symbol elsewhere in my script.

Right. :( Those inline var's should really be confined to the lexical
scope of a single definition. Why haven't I thought about this before??

>     var Y in
>     sieve {X|Xs} = {X|sieve {Y:Y in Xs,Y mod X<>0}};

Not a bad idea. Another possible approach would be to attach an inline
var to an expression, as in:

sieve {X|Xs} = {X|var Y : sieve {Y:Y in Xs,Y mod X<>0}};

The scope of the var declaration would then be limited to the expression
after the ':'. Eddie's example could then be written as:

outliers X = filter (var X : \X . (X < LF) or (X > RF)) X ...;

That would be much more useful than the inline var declarations we have
now. Opinions? Anyone against this change?

Albert

-- 
Dr. Albert Gr"af
Dept. of Music-Informatics, University of Mainz, Germany
Email:  Dr....@t-..., ag...@mu...
WWW:    http://www.musikinformatik.uni-mainz.de/ag