Re: Handling branch cuts for hypergeometric functions

>>>>> "Viktor" == Viktor T Toth  writes:

    >> Since maxima already uses interactive queries, it would be
    >> more consistent to have more interactive queries.

    Viktor> If I may throw in my two cents' worth, I really think that we should work
    Viktor> towards reducing the number of instances when Maxima asks a question
    Viktor> interactively, not add to them. Interactive queries are _evil_ 

    >> On the other hand, it is also consistent to have flags
    >> of some sort that make default assumption

    Viktor> It may not be ideal, but in my opinion, it's a lot more preferable than
    Viktor> interactive queries.

I would find it annoying not to have interactive queries.  I guess I'm
influenced by how Lisp works (or can work).  If I get an error in
Lisp, many times I'm offered a choice of how to continue.  I can
select the appropriate choice and keep going, without having to
go back and redo everything.  If, later on, I know what the answer
will be, I can instruct Lisp to always select the desired choice
without asking or I can just ignore the error, or make it fatal.

I don't particularly like the idea of maxima saying something is
ambiguous and then producing nothing except a note.  Then I have to
re-enter the expression again, after the appropriate assume statement,
and then only to be asked yet another question, and so on.  

It seems, though, that I am in the minority here.

Ray