Subject: Program stack overflow defining infix operator
From: Barton Willis
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 2009 10:33:31 -0500
-----maxima-bounces at math.utexas.edu wrote: -----
>Writing?the?simplification?code?is?straightforward.??It?might?be
>messier?to?get?the?translator?to?do?the?right?thing,?but?maybe?not.
>
>????????????-s
I agree that writing the code is (likely) straightforward. But there are
choices:
(1) Should Maxima have distinct simplifying and non-simplifying logical
connectives? If so, what should we name the new functions.
(2) Short or non-short circuited?
(3) What simplifications should automatically be used? How about optional
(spendy) simplifications (option variables or special extra simplification
functions).
(4) What about non-boolean arguments? (for example: matrix([7]) and
[8,9]).
(5) What about errors?
(6) What about prederror? Should we keep true / false / unknown logic?
Maybe if there was a pretty good specification for these functions, it
would
help to get it done.
Barton