>????I'm?more?interested?in?having?Maxima?corrected?so?the?bug?related?to
>????00?and?sum()?no?longer?show?up,
Maybe you would like to write your own power function that does power(0,0) --> 1.
Functions such as simplify_sum would not recognize your power function, but in
some contexts, maybe your own power function would work for you.
I don't know much about the limit code, but I think it sometimes does what I call a
spaghetti test (throw it against the wall and see if it sticks). That is, the limit
code sometimes tries to evaluate a limit by direct substitution. Provided no errors
result, limit thinks all is well. That is, I think, a poor method. Similarly,
the definite integration code has a weak (and silly) check for continuity of the
antiderivative (the undocumented option variable 'nointegrate' alters this check,
I think). Both the limit code and the definite integration code could use a predicate
that *tries* to determine if an expression is continuous (at a point or on an interval).
Of course, such a predicate cannot be perfect, but it could at least be as good as an
average freshman calculus student and better than the current spaghetti tests.
In short, don't hold your breath for a 0^0 --> 1 option.
--Barton