If you don't like what EV does, then don't use it.
If you come up with another mechanism that you like better, I suggest you
call it something else.
Changing a program in an incompatible fashion, a program that's been around
for 35 years,
on the grounds that "you don't understand it" may not be the best plan.
I'm not defending ev in particular, but I've seen other cases in the Macsyma
code where some MIT undergrad decided to "simplify" something and ended up
by subtlely breaking something else.
Substitution semantics based on lambda calculus's alpha and beta reduction
are well defined but uncomfortable for the typical "applied math user".
RJF
> -----Original Message-----
> From: maxima-bounces at math.utexas.edu
> [mailto:maxima-bounces at math.utexas.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Dodier
> Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 8:53 AM
> To: Stavros Macrakis
> Cc: Maxima Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [Maxima] Problems with EV
>
> On 5/16/07, Stavros Macrakis <macrakis at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > The point of my examples was not to say that particular
> results couldn't be
> > explained, but to rebut the notion (which I think you
> expressed) that ev has
> > been unjustly maligned. I hope you agree by now that it is justly
> > maligned....
>
> Not really, but it's beside the point, so I won't pursue it.
>
> > I don't think it would be very hard to specify a clean,
> well-defined EV.
> > But I don't think it would have that DWIM quality for
> anyone, probably not
> > even its author.
>
> I'm certainly willing to dump the DWIM-ness of ev, since the M is
> quite mysterious anyway. Some comprehensible policy is going
> to make most people happier, I believe.
>
> We might start by stating some Maxima code and then saying ev
> has to be equivalent to that. Actually even before that, we should
> probably throw out some stuff. The evfun stuff comes to mind.
>
> FWIW
> Robert
> _______________________________________________
> Maxima mailing list
> Maxima at math.utexas.edu
> http://www.math.utexas.edu/mailman/listinfo/maxima
>