scope of declarations, was Re: bug in trigsimp?

Here's a list, off the top of my head, of things that can be attached to 
a symbol in Maxima.
probably incomplete.

matchdeclare(F, predicate)
tellsimp(F(..), .. )
values   F: ...
function definition:  F(..):=
properties:  put(F,value, indicator)
assume(F>0)
declare(F, real)

...

Perhaps we can agree that all this data pertains only to the "top level" 
F in Maxima, and that the F
in this construction...
foo(x,y,F,z):=   has nothing to do with the top-level F?

we then may wonder about
foo(x):=  block([F], put(F,...) ,  matchdeclare(F, ..) ...
  should that change the global F or the local F?

or do we require
foo(x):=block([F],local(F), ....)

This also may interact with context()  which has the effect of binding 
assumptions, but not other properties.

If we don't make such a determination about locality of properties, it 
is essentially impossible to write programs that avoid RM's bug.

Robert Marik wrote:
> Hello, is this a bug in trigsimp?
>
> Robert Marik
>
> Maxima 5.17.1 http://maxima.sourceforge.net
> Using Lisp CLISP 2.44.1 (2008-02-23)
> Distributed under the GNU Public License. See the file COPYING.
> Dedicated to the memory of William Schelter.
> The function bug_report() provides bug reporting information.
> (%i1) declare(x,constant);
> (%o1)                                done
> (%i2) trigsimp(y);
> Improper parameter in function definition for trigsimp:
> x
> #0: trigsimp(?_l=[y])(trgsmp.mac line 70)
>  -- an error.  To debug this try debugmode(true);
> (%i3)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Maxima mailing list
> Maxima at math.utexas.edu
> http://www.math.utexas.edu/mailman/listinfo/maxima
>