This example should be self explanatory. I expected same output in both cases. Is this a feature or a bug? Caused disaster in my formula logic.

Thanks!


FunctionBug.sm (7.33 KiB) downloaded 645 time(s).

Feature

You are using pass-by-reference, that assign a value to an input argument when it is the target of an assignment inside the procedure (see here f.e.)



the last assignment is missing; to assign the same value both to the result and to the input variable you have to define ID#:eval(ID#+1) even after the loop.

Wrote

Feature

You are using pass-by-reference, that assign a value to an input argument when it is the target of an assignment inside the procedure (see here f.e.)



the last assignment is missing; to assign the same value both to the result and to the input variable you have to define ID#:eval(ID#+1) even after the loop.

Davide, pass by reference assignment is intentional. What i do not understand is why
The result is 56 and not 10 - I used eval() to assign a static value to ID#, or so I thought, but ID# was assigned a dynamic ID# = ID# + 1, which was not the intent.

Hey, in first block, you incremented ID by 1 in loop; in second you do it by self-incrementing i!

... more conveniently and generalised.

Maths SUM.sm (10.68 KiB) downloaded 633 time(s).

Wrote

Davide, pass by reference assignment is intentional. What i do not understand is why
The result is 56 and not 10 - I used eval() to assign a static value to ID#, or so I thought, but ID# was assigned a dynamic ID# = ID# + 1, which was not the intent.

Ah! Now I see it.

Wrote

Hey, in first block, you incremented ID by 1 in loop; in second you do it by self-incrementing i!

This is the cause

Thank you all; so far I understood that something should be clear to me by now, but its not. What can I do to encapsulate a seemingly simple for() loop in a function that produces same result (10)?
FunctionBug1.sm (6.67 KiB) downloaded 631 time(s).

Hello Alex M.

I just hope that you did not see "1" - one instead if "i" in the loop.
Was that the problem or something else?



Regards,
Radovan

Wrote

Hello Alex M.

I just hope that you did not see "1" - one instead if "i" in the loop.
Was that the problem or something else?



Regards,
Radovan

I was blind as a mole. Thanks

I'm sure something I don't understand in there,
i.e: in what you are trying to do !