After looking at Barton"s example, I think I concur :)
On 6/26/07, Richard Fateman <fateman at cs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> No, I think that would not fix anything.
> Usual technique is to use unusual names, e.g.
> F(%x1%):= block([%b1%,...] ) etc
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: maxima-bounces at math.utexas.edu
> > [mailto:maxima-bounces at math.utexas.edu] On Behalf Of praimon
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 11:49 AM
> > To: Maxima mailing list
> > Subject: Re: [Maxima] Variables in function definition problem
> >
> > On 6/26/07, Stavros Macrakis <macrakis at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> > > Your particular problem comes from a problem in the
> > evaluator which I
> > > consider to be a bug. And I believe we can fix it. In
> > general, however,
> > > Maxima's current semantics (dynamic scope) will lead to
> > other situations
> > > where the names of variables do matter.
> >
> > Thanks. Until the fix, would explicitly declaring as local all
> > variables used on the left side of a function definition bypass the
> > general problem, or could that lead to other issues?
> > _______________________________________________
> > Maxima mailing list
> > Maxima at math.utexas.edu
> > http://www.math.utexas.edu/mailman/listinfo/maxima
> >
>
>