Hi,
> > draw2d(terminal=png, color=blue, [x^2,x,-1,1]) ?
>
> I'd rather see some specific object type here. A list is very general.
We don't need to re-invent the wheel. plot2d and plot3d have a syntax
similar to this. I like the syntax object(ar1,arg2,...), but if there is
a general agreement, I can change this to [object,ar1,arg2,...] in
future versions. In this context, [explicit,expr,var,a,b] and
[expr,var,a,b] could be considered equivalent.
> > What about defining shortcuts such as
> >
> > draw2d(te=png, co=blue, ex(x^2,x,-1,1))
>
> I'm pretty much completely opposed to allowing abbreviations.
> I'm not opposed to short, cryptic names for frequently used items,
> but I am opposed to allowing more than one name for something.
>
Ok, let's forget this.
> Just to throw out another idea (I haven't thought this through) consider this.
> How about a notation which describes the set of points to be plotted?
>
> e.g.
> plotme ({(x,y) s.t. y = f(x) and x in open_interval(-1, +1)});
> (an explicit plot) or
> plotme ({(x,y) s.t. g(x, y) = 0})
> (an implicit plot).
>
> This has the advantage that all kinds of plots are described by the
> same notation. Maxima doesn't recognize "set-builder" notation at
> present but I think it is feasible to invent some useful stuff.
Sounds revolutionary from a CAS-point of view. This could be extended to
other functions: {x: x^2+x+a=0} instead of algsys([x^2+x+a=0],[x]), etc.
I think there are members in this list with better skills than me to
tell us how far we can go in this direction.
Just brainstorming :)
--
Mario Rodriguez Riotorto
www.biomates.net