On Wed, 19 Dec 2001, Richard B. Kreckel wrote:
I am about to check in your patch. Just one curious question: why the unsigned variable in
unsigned end = nops(); if (end) op(0).print(c); for (unsigned i=1; i<end; ++i) { c.s << ','; op(i).print(c); }
in classes mul and add? Did
op(0).print(c); for (unsigned i=1; i<nops(); ++i) { c.s << ','; op(i).print(c); }
not work? In this case you would have gotten an unevaluated expairseq, which'ld be strange...
Indeed, it works. Silly me ..
Also, I am removing the implementation of relational::is_equal_same_type you sent us for 1.0.1 because having relational::compare_same_type is enough by virtue of basic::compare_same_type.
I've checked out 1.0.2. All pyGiNaC tests pass fine. Thanks, Pearu