Program stack overflow defining infix operator

Robert Dodier wrote:
> On 8/9/09, Richard Fateman <fateman at cs.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
>   
>> To the extent that these proposals seem to raise huge issues with
>> incompatibility with previous programs, I think they should not be
>> implemented.
>>     
>
> Sorry, I don't care. "It has been messed up for decades" doesn't
> carry any weight for me.
>
> FWIW
>
> Robert Dodier
> _______________________________________________
> Maxima mailing list
> Maxima at math.utexas.edu
> http://www.math.utexas.edu/mailman/listinfo/maxima
>
>   
Well,
 I think that  new versions of maxima should be able to use programs 
written with older versions-at least using the main functions and 
programming.   As everyone knows, it usually takes a very
 large time to develop useful software. 

At least for me (and I think this applies to many others), most of the 
software that I use in maxima consists of routines I have developed over 
a long time (several years), and are not available as standard routines 
supplied by maxima.  It would be a disaster if many of them stopped 
working e.g. because someone decided to fix a simplification program 
which applies mainly to esoteric cases.

I have not followed this thread, so I don't know the huge implications 
which RJF has in mind, but I think that his experience should be taken 
seriously and that  one should proceed cautiosly in making modifications 
which have very broad implications.

Here is one example in which I had to waste some time.  I had developed 
some graphing tools using 'open_plot_curves" or whatever it used to be 
called.  The routines for plot were changed and this command was 
dropped.  Sure, the new routines were better, and, if I were a new user, 
there would not have been a problem.  But, my programs simply stopped 
working.  It took several hours to create new routines.    Had the old 
commands been left in and the new ones simply added, this would have 
saved much time.

-sen