Re: set.lisp redefines POWERSET / {} for sets

On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, C Y wrote:

> 
> --- Martin RUBEY <rubey@labri.fr> wrote:
> > 1. operators in the interactive session should *default* to there
> > most common usage (and it should be easy to change that, it is in 
> > maxima I believe)
> 
> How about this:  We create a sample init file that makes these
> assumptions and let the user put it in place if they so desire. We
> document it thoroughly, so it becomes both a useful tool for newbies
> and a tutorial for the init file.  That way, people could tweak it to
> their own liking for say a class environment, so it behaves the way
> they want it to.

Great. D'accord !
> 
> > 2. a program written in the maxima language should *not* make use of 
> > these operators. If it does, it is not "shareable".
> 
> This is one of my major reasons for not wanting to make the above init
> file the default configuration - people should have to seek out the
> simplifying assumptions and know they are not standard before using
> them.  Otherwise people will just start writing basic programs with the
> simple assumptions and not understand why they don't work for someone
> else.  We will probably get some of that anyway, but at least this
> would raise the bar a little.

This is what I wanted to say. In fact, it might be easy then to create a
function load-check("maxima-program.mac") that complains if it encounters
notation that is not allowed for share.

> Another thing we could do would be to have the basic init file print a
> little warning/info about what it was doing.  Something very brief but
> which lets the user know this isn't the standard configuration.  We
> could make that a standard for when anyone creates this type of
> behavior altering init file.  Not that we could enforce it, of course,
> but at least start out that way.

Great idea. Warning is maybe too intimidating. I suggest:

* enabling customized notation: {} set, || abs, ...

> Perhaps, if this becomes a popular thing for class environments, we
> could create a repository of init files which customize behavior for
> physics, engineering, etc.  Of course when things hit that level it
> almost makes as much sense to make a share package that does that job.

Well, I'm afraid that this won't happen, at least not in Europe. MuPad is
free here too (for schools, at least in France) and I think that Maxima
does not compare with MuPad. Although I do not know MuPad very well, I
dare say it is a fine program for doing Mathematics. I know many people
(mathematicians) who switched from Maple to MuPad because its better.

In fact, this raises another important issue, I think:

What is our clientel, our future aim?

(In the following, I use the word 'compete' in a sportive sense. English
is not my first language, I don't know how to express this better)

Certainly we cannot compete with Axiom. Axiom does things very
differently.

Maybe we can compete with Maple & Mathematica. If we want to, we've a long
way to go! Although Mathematica is buggy and sometimes a little strange, I
have to say that Maxima is *very* buggy and sometimes *very* strange. I
don't know about Maple.

Martin