Shouldn't this work?

[gap777]

Wrapping an expression in parenthesis seems to cause what otherwise is valid to be invalid:

(3 + Pow(2, 3))

In MathEvaluator.TryComma(), _nestedFunctionDepth (which is 1) < _nestedGroupDepth (which is 2).

What's the purpose of that particular assertion/check? What is it trying to guard against?

Can you think of a code change to support this expression?

[pwelter34]

3+(2^3)

[gap777]

Paul, I'm trying to communicate that the library fails to parse things when the superfluous enclosing parenthesis around the whole expression are included.

[pwelter34]

that code is making a poor assumption that a function would only take 1 param. I've been meaning to fix that, want to support things like round(123.456, 2)

[gap777]

I just added the "round" function on my fork.

It mostly works fine, except for the case I've raised to your attention.

On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Paul Welter notifications@github.com
wrote:

that code is making a poor assumption that a function would only take 1
param. I've been meaning to fix that, want to support things like
round(123.456, 2)

—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#4 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AGMdeuktd8n4Ni3Le4MHBcu0ZD8OSnxVks5qRSkkgaJpZM4JCmBG
.

[clumsybiker]

Round fails at the moment because the "TwoArgumentFunction" section of code uses reflection to find methods on the Math class with signatures that take (Double, Double).

Math.Round takes (Double, Int) causing the reflection: typeof(Math).GetMethod(....... to return null.

I couldn't come up with anything more elegant than if (_function == "Round") then changing the desiredMethodSignatureArgs from Double,Double to Double,Int. This fixes the reflection to find the Math.Round function but then you still have two doubles to pass to it, so it doesn't work ... yet!