I am using 0.099 - build 7005

The error highlighting has worked GREAT so far, but today I ran into a case where it is highlighting the wrong equation variable. The error is actually that other variables I am citing are below the equation, but it seems that the first equation variable is getting flagged.

Edited by moderator 09 March 2019 14:54:39(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

I guess that the problem is with the if clause, and it's special evaluation method.



Best regards.
Alvaro.

I noticed something else with this- if the function is defined ABOVE a variable that it uses is defined, then the error highlight triggers.

Then, when the function is evaluated below that, the function is highlighted, and the evaluation is halted too. So the error is flagged and the evaluation of the function is stopped.

Previously, I believe that the function was not evaluated, so that it generated no error. Similarly, the function results would be evaluated after the variable definition.

This is may be a real problem for those of us who define a bunch of equations well above where they get used if the evaluation of them is done after the dependent variables are evaluated or defined.

Here is a snippet from the original file-

error-highlight.sm (13kb) downloaded 15 time(s).

Previously, I recall that the function would evaluate at the end no matter where the function was defined or its evaluation status. I realize that I am asking it to evaluate before all the variables are defined.

Hi. Alyles it's right. Just don't force the evaluation in the definition of CheckIA. Don't need line(...) in this case. But this because none of the variables in it's definition have a value. See the effect of line(...) in T.all (with line) and V.all (without line)



Best regards.
Alvaro.

Hi. For that behavior you need the line, as in the attached: in red because can't evaluate numerically at this position in the worksheet, but give the correct result many times when it's variables have values.



Best regards.
Alvaro.

Jean Giraud-

I take exception to your response, especially your statement that I am nothing more than a 'complicator' and a 'complainer'. That goes against the respectful, collaborative discourse that I have grown to expect from this community.

The calculation sheets that I am using as examples to highlight the issues I am seeing I developed many years ago, under different versions and I am re-utilizing and updating them now with the latest manufacturer information.

I believe that there is a problem with this new feature, and I am discovering it through a sequence of repetitive calculations. Those of us who are NOT the best programmers are the ones who benefit the most from this, but unfortunately the ones who are going to experience the bugs/issues more since we are the ones who make the most mistakes.

Here is another example, written from SCRATCH that again highlights an issue with the error checking. I am trying to re-write an old MathCad sheet I wrote under version 11 in SMath.

The only copying and pasting going on here is I build complicated formulas incrementally to ensure that I can back check the terms by hand before the final equation and output. You can see the progression in the worksheet.

I am mystified why the equation is halting evaluation and noting that the N.cols variable is undefined, yet I can call it above and below the statement.


https://i.imgur.com/oRWzAWy.png





PileRedux_Factor.sm (7kb) downloaded 18 time(s).

Edited by user 27 March 2019 21:14:57(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

this work for me.

It's not the exact same code. Sergio uses symbolic evaluation (Ctrl + .) Same as right click clicking expression, changing optimization to symbolic.

the difference is in evaluation (=), that is after the definitions.
do this in two step and then no error is show