On 5/24/07, Robert Dodier <robert.dodier at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 5/24/07, Stavros Macrakis <macrakis at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
>
> > Could we try to converge on standard terminology?
Changing the terminology so that ":=" no longer defines a function,
> and stuff like integrate is no longer a function, seems like an
> extremely weak choice IMNSHO.
I am not married to any particular terminology. Then again, I don't see why
you think it's important that ":=" define a "function" rather than a
"routine" or whatever. After all, this is one of the most common confusions
that new users have -- they expect to define a (mathematical) function in
order to perform manipulations on it rather than manipulating expressions.
For that matter, having things called "functions" with side-effects (like,
say, assume and kill) is also weird from a mathematical point of view,
though of course we're used to that terminology in the Lisp and C worlds.
"Simplifying function" and "evaluating function" are enough.
>
> Or we can continue with our present confused terminology with
> clarifications ad hoc. I'd rather preserve the status quo ante,
> in this case, than make an arbitrary change of vocabulary.
>
I think our present confused terminology makes it hard to communicate
clearly, both among ourselves and especially with people learning Maxima.
For what it's worth, I think it was I who coined the term "simplifying
function" a couple of years ago on this list, but I am finding it clumsy.
-s