Looking at "? %piargs", my impression is that %piargs setting should
play a role in the final evaluation/simplification, i.e., when the
limits are substituted. The result Maxima returns looks so wrong, as
if something was messed up somewhere in the integration routine, yet
to integrate cos(x-c) w.r.t. x should be handled easily.
Milan
* Barton Willis <willisb at unk.edu> [2007-08-20 14:35:57 -0500]:
> -----maxima-bounces at math.utexas.edu wrote: -----
>
> >To: "'Milan Lukic'" <milan at eskimo.com>
> >From: Barton Willis <willisb at unk.edu>
> >Sent by: maxima-bounces at math.utexas.edu
> >Date: 08/20/2007 12:05PM
> >cc: maxima at math.utexas.edu
> >Subject: Re: [Maxima] An integration question
> >
> >This seems to be a bug introduced by recent changes to %piargs:
>
> I tried rolling trig.lisp back to CVS revision 1.27 -- this *doesn't*
> fix this bug. I could be wrong, but it doesn't seem that the bug
> is due to changes to the function %piargs.
>
> Barton
> _______________________________________________
> Maxima mailing list
> Maxima at math.utexas.edu
> http://www.math.utexas.edu/mailman/listinfo/maxima
--