7:14 p.m.
Hi,
another question on whether it's intended (or wise...) or not:
<hansl>
clear
for = 1 # works
print for # prints out 1
function void for(void) # gretl doesn't complain
print "ouf"
end function
for() # error "unexpected ("
</hansl>
First, I'm wondering whether 'for' shouldn't simply be made a reserved
word. One fallout from the present situation is that this:
'loop for(i=0;......'
--i.e. without a blank after 'for'-- doesn't work. No big thing, of course.
Secondly, a totally different thing -- and this applies to every
identifier, not just 'for' as above: If 'for' is already a variable, you
can define a function with the same name, but then you cannot call it.
Wouldn't it be better if gretl already complained when it encounters the
function definition?
thanks,
sven
8:41 p.m.
Almost all commands give an error
The most strange behavior was demonstrated by 'loop'
<hansl>
set verbose off
a_string = "loop = 2"
@a_string
print loop
"string" = bundle
open denmark.gdt
nothing at all
print "nothing at all"
<hansl>
WARNING you may need to close and reopen gretl after running it
Oleh
23 лютого 2018, 21:15:06, від "Sven Schreiber" <svetosch(a)gmx.net>:
Hi,
another question on whether it's intended (or wise...) or not:
<hansl>
clear
for = 1 # works
print for # prints out 1
function void for(void) # gretl doesn't complain
print "ouf"
end function
for() # error "unexpected ("
</hansl>
First, I'm wondering whether 'for' shouldn't simply be made a reserved
word. One fallout from the present situation is that this:
'loop for(i=0;......'
--i.e. without a blank after 'for'-- doesn't work. No big thing, of course.
Secondly, a totally different thing -- and this applies to every
identifier, not just 'for' as above: If 'for' is already a variable, you
can define a function with the same name, but then you cannot call it.
Wouldn't it be better if gretl already complained when it encounters the
function definition?
thanks,
sven
_______________________________________________
Gretl-devel mailing list
Gretl-devel(a)lists.wfu.edu
http://lists.wfu.edu/mailman/listinfo/gretl-devel
9:10 p.m.
Addition:
There's a way not to restart gretl after running the script at the bottom
<hansl>
nulldata
<hansl>
Output is (all together)
? set verbose on
? a_string = "loop = 2"
Replaced string a_string
? @a_string
print loop
"string" = bundle
open denmark.gdt
nothing at all
print "nothing at all"
> nulldata
The 'nulldata' command is not available in loop mode
Error executing script: halting
nulldata
After that one can work as usual
Oleh
23 лютого 2018, 22:41:43, від oleg_komashko(a)ukr.net:
Almost all commands give an error
The most strange behavior was demonstrated by 'loop'
<hansl>
set verbose off
a_string = "loop = 2"
@a_string
print loop
"string" = bundle
open denmark.gdt
nothing at all
print "nothing at all"
<hansl>
WARNING you may need to close and reopen gretl after running it
Oleh
23 лютого 2018, 21:15:06, від "Sven Schreiber" <svetosch(a)gmx.net>:
Hi,
another question on whether it's intended (or wise...) or not:
<hansl>
clear
for = 1 # works
print for # prints out 1
function void for(void) # gretl doesn't complain
print "ouf"
end function
for() # error "unexpected ("
</hansl>
First, I'm wondering whether 'for' shouldn't simply be made a reserved
word. One fallout from the present situation is that this:
'loop for(i=0;......'
--i.e. without a blank after 'for'-- doesn't work. No big thing, of course.
Secondly, a totally different thing -- and this applies to every
identifier, not just 'for' as above: If 'for' is already a variable, you
can define a function with the same name, but then you cannot call it.
Wouldn't it be better if gretl already complained when it encounters the
function definition?
thanks,
sven
_______________________________________________
Gretl-devel mailing list
Gretl-devel(a)lists.wfu.edu
http://lists.wfu.edu/mailman/listinfo/gretl-devel
_______________________________________________
Gretl-devel mailing list
Gretl-devel(a)lists.wfu.edu
http://lists.wfu.edu/mailman/listinfo/gretl-devel
4:56 p.m.
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018, Sven Schreiber wrote:
Hi,
another question on whether it's intended (or wise...) or not:
<hansl>
clear
for = 1 # works
print for # prints out 1
function void for(void) # gretl doesn't complain
print "ouf"
end function
for() # error "unexpected ("
</hansl>
First, I'm wondering whether 'for' shouldn't simply be made a
reserved word.
Yes, clearly. That's now done in git.
Allin
5:52 p.m.
On Fri, 23 Feb 2018, Sven Schreiber wrote:
If [vname] is already a variable, you can define a function with
the same name, but then you cannot call it. Wouldn't it be better
if gretl already complained when it encounters the function
definition?
Agreed, and it now does complain, in git.
Allin
2848
days inactive
2849
days old
4 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Allin Cottrell -
oleg_komashko＠ukr.net -
Sven Schreiber