Re: undefined compound chaining behavior

[Hossein Sajjadi]

Please conduct me how to bring you a convinving evidence

On 6/13/14, Ben Abbott <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Jun 13, 2014, at 8:15 AM, Hossein Sajjadi <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>>> The logic looks buggy.
>>>
>>> (1) You've claimed that the c++ rules for evaluation are undefined, and
>>> also
>>> insist that Octave should follow the c++ rules (Octave does not).  You
>>> can
>>> object to the ambiguity of c++, but not of Octave.
>>
>> Octave is built with the aid of the Bison parser utility.
>> You can refer to the bison example and my several posts about bison
>> mfcalc calculator.
>
> And your posts have failed to provide evidence backing up your assertion
> that Octave relies upon c++ for compounding.
>
>>> (2) Several developers have pointed out that Octave's parser has its own
>>> rules for evaluation. You can object that Octave uses rules that are
>>> different from c++, but cannot object to Octave's rules being undefined.
>>
>> Octave's rules of evaluation finally should be converted  with the
>> aid of the Bison utility, in all of cases behavior is the same.
>> This is c++ language that makes decision not Octave.
>
> Before asserting they are true, you should provide evidence for your
> assumptions.
>
> Ben
>