Variable bug?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
61 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Variable bug?

Torsten Wagner
https://github.com/openscad/openscad/issues/225

On 30 November 2012 10:16, Triffid Hunter <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Torsten Wagner <[hidden email]> wrote:
Even better why not color objects which have problems like this in red and make them always visible? That would really indicate to people something went wrong with that object.

this is an excellent idea, as long as there's a corresponding warning in the log so we're not sitting there staring at the code going "umm what's wrong with it?"


_______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Variable bug?

nophead
Going back to the original issue. Redefining a variable doesn't give a warning or error because the manual explicitly says it is allowed and uses the last value everywhere.

Why does it go wrong when the second definition uses another variable? 

On 30 November 2012 01:42, Torsten Wagner <[hidden email]> wrote:
https://github.com/openscad/openscad/issues/225

On 30 November 2012 10:16, Triffid Hunter <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Fri, Nov 30, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Torsten Wagner <[hidden email]> wrote:
Even better why not color objects which have problems like this in red and make them always visible? That would really indicate to people something went wrong with that object.

this is an excellent idea, as long as there's a corresponding warning in the log so we're not sitting there staring at the code going "umm what's wrong with it?"


_______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566


_______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Variable bug?

Alan Cox
In reply to this post by Torsten Wagner
> cube1 = cube([1,1,1])
> cube1.corner[:].radius = 2

What is the value of .radius between these two lines ?

If you are not very careful this becomes an assignment.

Hence it is better to have cube([a,b,c], radius=2, ... etc)


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Variable bug?

Peter Falke
Hi.

a=3;

b=7;

a=b+4;

echo(a,b);


WARNING: Ignoring unknown variable 'b'.

ECHO: undef, 7


Would someone be kind enough to look up the piece of code that generates this warning and post it here?


And what whould be the warning that whould be more informativ to a user?


Maybe:


WARNING: Ignoring definition of variable through other variables not possible


or:


WARNING: variable 'a=' can not be defined by variable 'b'

?

Sincerly,

TakeItAndRun

On 30 November 2012 10:55, Alan Cox <[hidden email]> wrote:
> cube1 = cube([1,1,1])
> cube1.corner[:].radius = 2

What is the value of .radius between these two lines ?

If you are not very careful this becomes an assignment.

Hence it is better to have cube([a,b,c], radius=2, ... etc)

_______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566



--
[hidden email]

P.S. Falls meine E-Mail kürzer ausfällt als Dir angenehm ist:
Ich probiere gerade aus kurze Antworten statt gar keine Antworten zu schreiben.
Wenn Du gerne mehr lesen möchtest, dann lass es mich bitte wissen.

P.S. In case my e-mail is shorter than you enjoy:
I am currently trying short replies instead of no replies at all.
Please let me know, if you like to read more.

Enjoy!

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Variable bug?

Peter Falke
Hi,

I had a little laugh when I did an every so small modification to the code:

b=7;

a=b+4;

a=3;

echo(a,b);


ECHO: 3, 7

This works just fine.


TakeItAndRun


On 30 November 2012 12:19, Peter Falke <[hidden email]> wrote:
a=3;

b=7;

a=b+4;

echo(a,b);




--
[hidden email]

P.S. Falls meine E-Mail kürzer ausfällt als Dir angenehm ist:
Ich probiere gerade aus kurze Antworten statt gar keine Antworten zu schreiben.
Wenn Du gerne mehr lesen möchtest, dann lass es mich bitte wissen.

P.S. In case my e-mail is shorter than you enjoy:
I am currently trying short replies instead of no replies at all.
Please let me know, if you like to read more.

Enjoy!

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Variable bug?

nophead
Yes it is legal to redefine a variable.
It is legal to define a variable in terms of another.
Therefore it should be legal to redefine a variable in terms of another. The error makes no sense at all.

On 30 November 2012 11:31, Peter Falke <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

I had a little laugh when I did an every so small modification to the code:

b=7;

a=b+4;

a=3;

echo(a,b);


ECHO: 3, 7

This works just fine.


TakeItAndRun


On 30 November 2012 12:19, Peter Falke <[hidden email]> wrote:
a=3;

b=7;

a=b+4;

echo(a,b);




--
[hidden email]

P.S. Falls meine E-Mail kürzer ausfällt als Dir angenehm ist:
Ich probiere gerade aus kurze Antworten statt gar keine Antworten zu schreiben.
Wenn Du gerne mehr lesen möchtest, dann lass es mich bitte wissen.

P.S. In case my e-mail is shorter than you enjoy:
I am currently trying short replies instead of no replies at all.
Please let me know, if you like to read more.

Enjoy!


_______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Variable bug?

Peter Falke
In reply to this post by Peter Falke
Hi,

b=7;

a=3;

a=b+4;

echo(a,b);


ECHO: 11, 7

This works fine, too.

There is a problem of ordering, ....

But I have to run, now.

I bet you'll have it figured out by the time im back

Have fun,

TakeitAnd Run

On 30 November 2012 12:31, Peter Falke <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

I had a little laugh when I did an every so small modification to the code:

b=7;

a=b+4;

a=3;

echo(a,b);


ECHO: 3, 7

This works just fine.


TakeItAndRun


On 30 November 2012 12:19, Peter Falke <[hidden email]> wrote:
a=3;

b=7;

a=b+4;

echo(a,b);




--
[hidden email]

P.S. Falls meine E-Mail kürzer ausfällt als Dir angenehm ist:
Ich probiere gerade aus kurze Antworten statt gar keine Antworten zu schreiben.
Wenn Du gerne mehr lesen möchtest, dann lass es mich bitte wissen.

P.S. In case my e-mail is shorter than you enjoy:
I am currently trying short replies instead of no replies at all.
Please let me know, if you like to read more.

Enjoy!




--
[hidden email]

P.S. Falls meine E-Mail kürzer ausfällt als Dir angenehm ist:
Ich probiere gerade aus kurze Antworten statt gar keine Antworten zu schreiben.
Wenn Du gerne mehr lesen möchtest, dann lass es mich bitte wissen.

P.S. In case my e-mail is shorter than you enjoy:
I am currently trying short replies instead of no replies at all.
Please let me know, if you like to read more.

Enjoy!

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Variable bug?

Whosawhatsis
This demonstrates what I was saying. When you declare A, it declares it at the FIRST occurrence of trying to declare it, but it declares it with the value of the LAST occurrence of trying to declare it. So

a=3;

b=7;

a=b+4;


simply becomes 


a=b+4;

b=7;


B is not declared yet when you try to use it to declare A, so it creates an error. If it did not do this, it would open up the possibility of trying to do something like


a = b;

b = a;


This is why a warning should be generated. It is legal to reassign a variable, but attempting to do so is likely to cause unexpected behaviors and possibly errors.

On Friday, November 30, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Peter Falke wrote:

Hi,

b=7;

a=3;

a=b+4;

echo(a,b);


ECHO: 11, 7

This works fine, too.

There is a problem of ordering, ....

But I have to run, now.

I bet you'll have it figured out by the time im back

Have fun,

TakeitAnd Run

On 30 November 2012 12:31, Peter Falke <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

I had a little laugh when I did an every so small modification to the code:

b=7;

a=b+4;

a=3;

echo(a,b);


ECHO: 3, 7

This works just fine.


TakeItAndRun


On 30 November 2012 12:19, Peter Falke <[hidden email]> wrote:
a=3;

b=7;

a=b+4;

echo(a,b);




--
[hidden email]

P.S. Falls meine E-Mail kürzer ausfällt als Dir angenehm ist:
Ich probiere gerade aus kurze Antworten statt gar keine Antworten zu schreiben.
Wenn Du gerne mehr lesen möchtest, dann lass es mich bitte wissen.

P.S. In case my e-mail is shorter than you enjoy:
I am currently trying short replies instead of no replies at all.
Please let me know, if you like to read more.

Enjoy!




--
[hidden email]

P.S. Falls meine E-Mail kürzer ausfällt als Dir angenehm ist:
Ich probiere gerade aus kurze Antworten statt gar keine Antworten zu schreiben.
Wenn Du gerne mehr lesen möchtest, dann lass es mich bitte wissen.

P.S. In case my e-mail is shorter than you enjoy:
I am currently trying short replies instead of no replies at all.
Please let me know, if you like to read more.

Enjoy!


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Variable bug?

Peter Falke
Hi Guys,

if I would be looking for the code, whould I have to start here:

file parser.y, line 153:

TOK_ID '=' expr ';' {
bool add_new_assignment = true;
for (size_t i = 0; i < currmodule->assignments_var.size(); i++) {
if (currmodule->assignments_var[i] != $1)
continue;
delete currmodule->assignments_expr[i];
currmodule->assignments_expr[i] = $3;
add_new_assignment = false;
}
if (add_new_assignment) {
currmodule->assignments_var.push_back($1);
currmodule->assignments_expr.push_back($3);
free($1);
}
} |


And where whould I have to go next?


TakeItAndRun



On 30 November 2012 18:54, whosawhatsis <[hidden email]> wrote:
This demonstrates what I was saying. When you declare A, it declares it at the FIRST occurrence of trying to declare it, but it declares it with the value of the LAST occurrence of trying to declare it. So

a=3;

b=7;

a=b+4;


simply becomes 


a=b+4;

b=7;


B is not declared yet when you try to use it to declare A, so it creates an error. If it did not do this, it would open up the possibility of trying to do something like


a = b;

b = a;


This is why a warning should be generated. It is legal to reassign a variable, but attempting to do so is likely to cause unexpected behaviors and possibly errors.

On Friday, November 30, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Peter Falke wrote:

Hi,

b=7;

a=3;

a=b+4;

echo(a,b);


ECHO: 11, 7

This works fine, too.

There is a problem of ordering, ....

But I have to run, now.

I bet you'll have it figured out by the time im back

Have fun,

TakeitAnd Run

On 30 November 2012 12:31, Peter Falke <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

I had a little laugh when I did an every so small modification to the code:

b=7;

a=b+4;

a=3;

echo(a,b);


ECHO: 3, 7

This works just fine.


TakeItAndRun


On 30 November 2012 12:19, Peter Falke <[hidden email]> wrote:
a=3;

b=7;

a=b+4;

echo(a,b);




--
[hidden email]

P.S. Falls meine E-Mail kürzer ausfällt als Dir angenehm ist:
Ich probiere gerade aus kurze Antworten statt gar keine Antworten zu schreiben.
Wenn Du gerne mehr lesen möchtest, dann lass es mich bitte wissen.

P.S. In case my e-mail is shorter than you enjoy:
I am currently trying short replies instead of no replies at all.
Please let me know, if you like to read more.

Enjoy!




--
[hidden email]

P.S. Falls meine E-Mail kürzer ausfällt als Dir angenehm ist:
Ich probiere gerade aus kurze Antworten statt gar keine Antworten zu schreiben.
Wenn Du gerne mehr lesen möchtest, dann lass es mich bitte wissen.

P.S. In case my e-mail is shorter than you enjoy:
I am currently trying short replies instead of no replies at all.
Please let me know, if you like to read more.

Enjoy!



_______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566



--
[hidden email]

P.S. Falls meine E-Mail kürzer ausfällt als Dir angenehm ist:
Ich probiere gerade aus kurze Antworten statt gar keine Antworten zu schreiben.
Wenn Du gerne mehr lesen möchtest, dann lass es mich bitte wissen.

P.S. In case my e-mail is shorter than you enjoy:
I am currently trying short replies instead of no replies at all.
Please let me know, if you like to read more.

Enjoy!

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Variable bug?

nophead
I think that code and whosawhatsis' last post completely explain it.

It replaces the expression for the orginal variable rather than deleting the original and creating a new one.

On 30 November 2012 22:52, Peter Falke <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Guys,

if I would be looking for the code, whould I have to start here:

file parser.y, line 153:

TOK_ID '=' expr ';' {
bool add_new_assignment = true;
for (size_t i = 0; i < currmodule->assignments_var.size(); i++) {
if (currmodule->assignments_var[i] != $1)
continue;
delete currmodule->assignments_expr[i];
currmodule->assignments_expr[i] = $3;
add_new_assignment = false;
}
if (add_new_assignment) {
currmodule->assignments_var.push_back($1);
currmodule->assignments_expr.push_back($3);
free($1);
}
} |


And where whould I have to go next?


TakeItAndRun




On 30 November 2012 18:54, whosawhatsis <[hidden email]> wrote:
This demonstrates what I was saying. When you declare A, it declares it at the FIRST occurrence of trying to declare it, but it declares it with the value of the LAST occurrence of trying to declare it. So

a=3;

b=7;

a=b+4;


simply becomes 


a=b+4;

b=7;


B is not declared yet when you try to use it to declare A, so it creates an error. If it did not do this, it would open up the possibility of trying to do something like


a = b;

b = a;


This is why a warning should be generated. It is legal to reassign a variable, but attempting to do so is likely to cause unexpected behaviors and possibly errors.

On Friday, November 30, 2012 at 3:44 AM, Peter Falke wrote:

Hi,

b=7;

a=3;

a=b+4;

echo(a,b);


ECHO: 11, 7

This works fine, too.

There is a problem of ordering, ....

But I have to run, now.

I bet you'll have it figured out by the time im back

Have fun,

TakeitAnd Run

On 30 November 2012 12:31, Peter Falke <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi,

I had a little laugh when I did an every so small modification to the code:

b=7;

a=b+4;

a=3;

echo(a,b);


ECHO: 3, 7

This works just fine.


TakeItAndRun


On 30 November 2012 12:19, Peter Falke <[hidden email]> wrote:
a=3;

b=7;

a=b+4;

echo(a,b);




--
[hidden email]

P.S. Falls meine E-Mail kürzer ausfällt als Dir angenehm ist:
Ich probiere gerade aus kurze Antworten statt gar keine Antworten zu schreiben.
Wenn Du gerne mehr lesen möchtest, dann lass es mich bitte wissen.

P.S. In case my e-mail is shorter than you enjoy:
I am currently trying short replies instead of no replies at all.
Please let me know, if you like to read more.

Enjoy!




--
[hidden email]

P.S. Falls meine E-Mail kürzer ausfällt als Dir angenehm ist:
Ich probiere gerade aus kurze Antworten statt gar keine Antworten zu schreiben.
Wenn Du gerne mehr lesen möchtest, dann lass es mich bitte wissen.

P.S. In case my e-mail is shorter than you enjoy:
I am currently trying short replies instead of no replies at all.
Please let me know, if you like to read more.

Enjoy!



_______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566



--
[hidden email]

P.S. Falls meine E-Mail kürzer ausfällt als Dir angenehm ist:
Ich probiere gerade aus kurze Antworten statt gar keine Antworten zu schreiben.
Wenn Du gerne mehr lesen möchtest, dann lass es mich bitte wissen.

P.S. In case my e-mail is shorter than you enjoy:
I am currently trying short replies instead of no replies at all.
Please let me know, if you like to read more.

Enjoy!


_______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Variable bug?

kintel
Administrator
Hi all,

I'm out traveling atm., so I'm just leeching on this conversation.
The last emails did, however, make it easy for me to attempt a quick-fix.

I didn't really test this, but I pushed a fix to the variable_bug branch on github:
https://github.com/openscad/openscad/tree/variable_bug

If someone could check it out and get back here, I could merge it into master.

Thanks,

 -Marius
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Variable bug?

kintel
Administrator
In reply to this post by nophead
Hi,

Revisiting this as I had forgotten about it and didn't get feedback on my fix:
I've committed the fix to master and it should work now.

 -Marius


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Variable bug?

vicnet
In reply to this post by kintel
kintel wrote
Anyway, these are all larger changes, and would need a fair amount of resources to pull off + a fair amount of headache to ensure that old models won't break (unless we make a clean break), so it's pretty much in the blue for now.

ok, that's what the top of my head could contribute for now ;)
I suggest to introduce keyword 'var' to define real variable.
Direct assignement will still be static varaible.
With this, old model will not be break.
'var' is a common way to declare variable and human readable (but no more declarative language as xslt ;) )

For compiler, it is like of assign until end of block, no ?

a+
Vicnet
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Variable bug?

Alan Cox
On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 22:36:58 -0700 (PDT)
vicnet <[hidden email]> wrote:

> kintel wrote
> > Anyway, these are all larger changes, and would need a fair amount of
> > resources to pull off + a fair amount of headache to ensure that old
> > models won't break (unless we make a clean break), so it's pretty much in
> > the blue for now.
> >
> > ok, that's what the top of my head could contribute for now ;)
>
> I suggest to introduce keyword 'var' to define real variable.

You really don't IMHO want to add "real variables", openscad is currently
a functional language which makes it parallelisable. It also makes it
much more approachable for "normal" human beings rather than computer
scientists.

                x = x + 1;

simply makes no sense in the real world and has a big cost for the long
term both for reliable execution (halting problem) and performance (as we
are getting more and more cores but no more speed)

Alan
_______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Variable bug?

nophead
+1


On 11 September 2013 10:40, Alan Cox <[hidden email]> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Sep 2013 22:36:58 -0700 (PDT)
vicnet <[hidden email]> wrote:

> kintel wrote
> > Anyway, these are all larger changes, and would need a fair amount of
> > resources to pull off + a fair amount of headache to ensure that old
> > models won't break (unless we make a clean break), so it's pretty much in
> > the blue for now.
> >
> > ok, that's what the top of my head could contribute for now ;)
>
> I suggest to introduce keyword 'var' to define real variable.

You really don't IMHO want to add "real variables", openscad is currently
a functional language which makes it parallelisable. It also makes it
much more approachable for "normal" human beings rather than computer
scientists.

                x = x + 1;

simply makes no sense in the real world and has a big cost for the long
term both for reliable execution (halting problem) and performance (as we
are getting more and more cores but no more speed)

Alan
_______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566


_______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Variable bug?

vicnet
In reply to this post by Alan Cox
OK for the functional way.
I understand this point of view.

a+
Vicnet
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Variable bug?

Mark Jeronimus
the current variable model is not Turing complete, and one of the things that's in the way is variable reassignment.

For example, one thing I really like to do is

array = [];

for(x = [-4:4]) {
    array[x+4] = [x, 3 * x*x - 2*x*x*x];
}

polygon(array, ...);


On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 12:45 PM, vicnet <[hidden email]> wrote:
OK for the functional way.
I understand this point of view.

a+
Vicnet




--
View this message in context: http://forum.openscad.org/Variable-bug-tp3523p5439.html
Sent from the OpenSCAD mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566


_______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Variable bug?

nophead
It could be made Turing complete without mutable variables though. All it needs is a list concatenation operator.

function array(x = -4) = x  < 5 ? [x, 3 * x*x - 2*x*x*x] & array(x + 1)  : [ ] ;

It then remains a functional language with all the benefits mentioned earlier.


On 11 September 2013 15:00, Mark Jeronimus <[hidden email]> wrote:
the current variable model is not Turing complete, and one of the things that's in the way is variable reassignment.

For example, one thing I really like to do is

array = [];

for(x = [-4:4]) {
    array[x+4] = [x, 3 * x*x - 2*x*x*x];
}

polygon(array, ...);



On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 12:45 PM, vicnet <[hidden email]> wrote:
OK for the functional way.
I understand this point of view.

a+
Vicnet




--
View this message in context: http://forum.openscad.org/Variable-bug-tp3523p5439.html
Sent from the OpenSCAD mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
_______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566


_______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566


_______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Variable bug?

Alan Cox
In reply to this post by Mark Jeronimus
On Wed, 11 Sep 2013 16:00:32 +0200
Mark Jeronimus <[hidden email]> wrote:

> the current variable model is not Turing complete, and one of the things
> that's in the way is variable reassignment.

You do not need reassignment of values to be Turing complete.

> For example, one thing I really like to do is
>
> array = [];
>
> for(x = [-4:4]) {
>     array[x+4] = [x, 3 * x*x - 2*x*x*x];
> }
>
> polygon(array, ...);

This does not need to be a reassignment of values. It's declaring the
values of bits of array once. OpenSCAD may not be smart enough to do that
but its not fundamentally impossible or not functional.

There are nicer ways to be able to write this which openscad also doesn't
support. The obvious one being to allow the creation of vectors nicely
from functions

        array = f(x) where x=[-4:4];

or perhaps

        array = f(x:x=[-4:4]);

which would invoke f(x) for the range given and build the array. Same
works for multiple dimensions.

Alan
_______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Variable bug?

Roland Hieber
In reply to this post by Mark Jeronimus
On 11.09.2013 16:00, Mark Jeronimus wrote:
> the current variable model is not Turing complete, and one of the things
> that's in the way is variable reassignment.

Yeah, SQL is also not Turing-complete and serves a lot of good purposes,
so what's your point?

 - Roland
_______________________________________________
OpenSCAD mailing list
[hidden email]
http://rocklinux.net/mailman/listinfo/openscad
http://openscad.org - https://flattr.com/thing/121566
1234