Do we require that CF consist solely of integers? In which case a CF is a
rational constant and should be treated as yet another kind of number, and
pass the predicate mnump [if that is what it is called] along with...
rational, float, bigfloat, complex constant, which would minimally impact
the simplifier.
We would then have to decide how to add cf(...) and 3.14d0. etc etc.
If cf can have symbolic elements, then the issue becomes more complicated.
I don't know if there is a nice CF output representation. cf(a,b,...) might
be clear enough, with some indication of repetition or some version of
a+b/(c+ d/(e+ ...)) as an option.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: maxima-bounces at math.utexas.edu
> [mailto:maxima-bounces at math.utexas.edu] On Behalf Of Barton Willis
> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 3:56 AM
> To: Robert Dodier
> Cc: macrakis at alum.mit.edu; maxima at math.utexas.edu
> Subject: Re: [Maxima] continued fractions, was: Quality of
> share vs. src (WAS matrixexp problem (bug ?))
>
> -----maxima-bounces at math.utexas.edu wrote: -----
>
> >Well, I don't know if the code should be moved, but how about if we
> >rework the representation to be like other Maxima objects?
> At present
> >continued fraction objects are expressions of the form
> ((MLIST CF) ...)
> >and they are displayed as lists. How about if we represent them as
> >((%CF) ...) and display them as either cf(...) or,
>
> Surely, the cleanest way to handle continued fractions would
> be to modify simplus and friends. Then, for example, cf(1,2)
> + cf(3,4) => cf(4,1,3).
> (Currently, cf([1,2] + [3,4]) => [4,1,3].) Reworking Maxima's
> arithmetic simplification functions would be a good thing
> (they are slow and inflexible), but it's a great deal of work.
>
> Barton
> _______________________________________________
> Maxima mailing list
> Maxima at math.utexas.edu
> http://www.math.utexas.edu/mailman/listinfo/maxima
>