SMath Studio Forum
»
SMath Studio
»
Questions
»
i as formal argument in function definitions
  Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Registered
Joined: 15/04/2012(UTC) Posts: 1,990  Was thanked: 1128 time(s) in 724 post(s)
|
I encountered the problem that I cannot use i as formal argument in function definitions. This is surprising to me, since i can be redefined in other situations (eg. by use as loop variable). May be this has been discussed earlier, but I don't find a hint. Seems like one more oddity that is hard to explain. Or did I miss something? mkraska attached the following image(s): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
  Rank: Administration Groups: Registered, Advanced Member Joined: 23/06/2009(UTC) Posts: 1,740   Was thanked: 318 time(s) in 268 post(s)
|
Hello Martin, I remember this issue has been mentioned here more than few times. See for instance this one Treatment-of-imaginary-unit. Regards, Radovan |
When Sisyphus climbed to the top of a hill, they said: "Wrong boulder!" |
 2 users thanked omorr for this useful post.
|
on 26/02/2013(UTC), on 26/02/2013(UTC)
|
|
|
Rank: Advanced Member Groups: Registered
Joined: 15/04/2012(UTC) Posts: 1,990 Was thanked: 1128 time(s) in 724 post(s)
|
Originally Posted by: omorr  Hello Martin, I remember this issue has been mentioned here more than few times. See for instance this one Treatment-of-imaginary-unit. Regards, Radovan Thank you, Radovan. I see that the resistance to i as formal parameter is hardwired in order to cover leaks in the optimization procedures. Would the formal parameters really be treated as local variables then life would be much easier. In my handbook I frequently use i as variable name (loop counters, indices) in the hope that one day Andrey will find a clean solution that allows for unlimited use of i as variable name. With a little criminal energy there is a workaround, see attachment. The trick is visible but not obvious and therefore cannot be recommended for regular use. Martin mkraska attached the following image(s): |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Administration Groups: Registered, Advanced Member Joined: 23/06/2009(UTC) Posts: 1,740 Was thanked: 318 time(s) in 268 post(s)
|
Originally Posted by: mkraska With a little criminal energy there is a workaround, see attachment. The trick is visible but not obvious and therefore cannot be recommended for regular use. The i. (dot after i - it can be seen by looking at the braces, they are a bit larger) is of the most troublesome and problematic issue to explain to beginners (is there an index or not? it looks like one, why it is not working as expected?? etc.) During all these years I am always having the same kind of questions and explanations to my students ,over and over, about "literal", "real one", "fictive", "dot as a part of variable name" and all kinds of errors in spite of endless repeating of that. Regards, Radovan |
When Sisyphus climbed to the top of a hill, they said: "Wrong boulder!" |
|
|
|
|
|
SMath Studio Forum
»
SMath Studio
»
Questions
»
i as formal argument in function definitions
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
