Stavros Macrakis:
>>I assure you that very few people will run demo("tutorial").
>
>
> Agreed.
>
> It also seems perverse to have a default that we expect *new* users (as
> opposed to experienced users) to have to change. Users do not come to
> Maxima to learn how to customize, but to get mathematical work done.
> Once they discover it is useful for their mathematical work, only then
> will they be willing to invest more effort in learning things like
> customization.
>
>
>>In my experience, I almost never type something like c5.
>>Except maybe ''c5 to do f(x):=''c5.
>
>
> Agreed.
>
>
>>I frequently type an old label like d5. If we allow %5 to be
>>a shorthand for %out5, that might be ok. or %[5] or running
>>from the current line, % is previous, %% pre-previous, %%% etc.
>
>
> I think %5 is OK, but %[5] is not, since (a) it already has a clear
> compositional meaning -- take the 5th element of the value of %; (b)
> that is a common and useful thing to do (selecting one solution to an
> equation). Anyway, % or %in or %i (my favorite) is a trivial change to
> Maxima, and %[5] or %in[5] is not.
>
>
I think that %# and %, %%, %%% is a very sensible and convenient choice
for output. The replacement for C# E# might be
%i# %t#
%i# %l#
%in# %lin#
or finally nostalgic
%c# %e#
But the important question is - do we *really* want to incorporate such
important change into 5.9.1 ? How about documentation, xmaxima, TeXmacs
etc ? I venture to suggest postponing new line numbering scheme till
5.9.2 (not later).
--
Vadim V. Zhytnikov
<vvzhy@mail.ru>
<vvzhy@netorn.ru>