implication as infix operator



On 6/24/07, van Nek <van.nek at arcor.de> wrote:

> looking at your examples I think it's the best way first to define the new operator and then
> secondly defining the associated function:
>
> (%i1) infix("@")$
> (%i2) "@"(a, b) := sconcat("(", a, ",", b, ")")$

You are correct -- Maxima wants to see the infix declaration,
then the function definition. I will change the documentation
for infix accordingly.

best
Robert