On 12/12/05, Stavros Macrakis wrote:
> Well, the first reason is I suppose aesthetic: that this is the 'wrong
> way'; the right way would be true lexical scoping (but that has lots
> of difficulties in the Maxima context, which have been discussed
> before). So perhaps that is not such a good reason.
i agree that lexical scoping would be really nice.
> Another reason is that as a general rule, it is a bad idea to use
> strong mechanisms when weaker ones will do.
i disagree completely. knowing one strong approach
which solves several problems is much better than
trying to memorize several weaker approaches.
> Buildq is intended for building code within macros,
> not for simply substituting values.
the intent of the programmer is irrelevant to the user.
i'm frankly mystified by suggestions to the contrary.
as for myself, i'm glad to hear we have another satisfied customer.
buildq has 2 things going for it: it substitutes in parallel,
and it quotes its second argument.
both of these make predicting the outcome easier
(a nontrivial consideration in maxima).
neither sublis nor subst have both of these features.
best,
robert dodier