-----maxima-bounces at math.utexas.edu wrote: -----
>Thus,?I?have?implemented?code?to?extend?$sign?to?give?full?support?for
>complex
expressions.?I?have?already?posted?some?results?on?this?mailing?list.?See:
>[Maxima]?Complex?mode?for?$sign.?Perhaps,?we?should?come?back?to?the
>suggested code?and?implement?full?support?for?complex?expressions.
>
>Dieter?Kaiser
I looked at the patch file, but I didn't test it. Two questions:
Does this code pass the test suite; does this code fix any known
bugs in the test suite?
It seems that you put a great deal of time into this code; assuming
the patch doesn't break anything that you know of, maybe you should
go ahead an commit it. Over time, things like this get lost or go out
of date.
The sign code has many weaknesses (there are 11 out of 89 failures in
rtest_sign). Also, it's not easy to tell when a weakness is actually a
bug (I don't understand the algorithms in compar.lisp). The sign code
even fails for some linear assumptions. Ouch.
Till then, I think I can work around this bug.
Thanks for the work on a possible solution.
Barton