First step toward a 5.9.2 release



On Thu, 31 Mar 2005, C Y wrote:
> > 5) Apply fix for slatec - sbcl problem.
Is not this done? I've built a revent cvs maxima with sbcl-0.8.20;
earlier cvs versions produces some type errors in slatec (something about 
char types, because recent sbcl supports unicode).

> > 6) Some small Windows port fixes - userdir for console maxima.
> > Do we need to change something for integration with WinTeXmacs?
> Um - got me there.  Andrey, are you up on that one?
I don't think anything should be done in maxima for integration with 
WinTeXmacs. All the required work is on the WinTeXmacs side. Recently two 
persons managed to make the WinTeXmacs-maxima interface working, though 
with some restrictions. I hope Dan Martens will improve this (I don't have 
Windows).

> (Incidently, I 
> flagged the 1162854 bug for 5.9.2 and added your comments to it.  
Thanks. The patch 1173811 I put to sf is short and non-contraversial, and 
should be applyed, I think. And it is really useful for TeXmacs, too.

> We should probably make sure that whatever needs doing to have 
> 5.9.2 work with latest TeXmacs is done, if possible - Jim, what do 
> you think?)
Again, no work on maxima side required (except the patch 1173811). The 
support of maxima-5.9.2 (also working for recent cvs versions) has been 
committed to TeXmacs cvs today. It includes a much improved possibility of 
math mode input (integrals, sums, square roots, determinants, binomial 
coefficients...) I am writing a tutorial on this stuff, because it is not 
documented anywhere.

> > 8) Fix describe.
> > About 8:  With new Maxima manual conventions describe
> > seems to be broken.  It is a bit strange since it worked
> > well to me on some test examples.  Anyway I don't think
> > it is hard problem.
> IIRC I saw a behavior where describe would display the entire file 
> rather than the single relevant entry - is that what you saw?  I 
> was never sure if that was just some fluke on my system or not.
Yes, I also see describe printing the whole file instead of just one 
function I need. Rather tiresome. I have no idea when this misbehaviour 
started - in the past, describe worked correctly.

Best wishes,
Andrey