newRPL - build 1255 released! [updated to 1299]

[Claudio L.]

(01-10-2019 03:34 PM)The Shadow Wrote:  Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but in the case of .iN you've got an actual number. Why can't you use ->NUM on it?

That's just a special case, in the general case the condition could be anything, so equality needs to be simplified and checked symbolically. In purely numeric expressions ->NUM could work, but will throw an error if there's any undefined variables, and even if they are defined, how do we know the user wants the variable replaced? The rules engine shouldn't depend on the values of variables other than the special variables defined during the rule processing. All others should remain symbolic, and there's no way to tell if ->NUM's result pulled the value of a variable or not.