Stavros Macrakis wrote:
> Nothing "wrong" with what you're doing. But if the variable 'x' happens to
> be defined as 2 or q when you write
>
> f(x) -> x^5 + x^2 - 1;
This notation is nice but is it not a way to redefine the operator := such
that it becomes "define"?
By the way, i have reread the documentation about functions in maxima,
section 36, and noted that, while it is explained that functions are noted
f(x):= ? there is no explanation of the notation of array functions in 36.2.2,
that is f[x]:=
On the other hand evaluations problems of the sort discussed here are
mentioned, for example:
(%i1) [F : I, u : x];
(%o1) [I, x]
(%i2) funmake (F, [u]);
(%o2) I(x)
(%i3) define (funmake (F, [u]), cos(u) + 1);
(%o3) I(x) := cos(x) + 1
(%i4) define (arraymake (F, [u]), cos(u) + 1);
(%o4) I := cos(x) + 1
x
(%i5) define (foo (x, y), bar (y, x));
(%o5) foo(x, y) := bar(y, x)
(%i6) define (ev (foo (x, y)), sin(x) - cos(y));
(%o6) bar(y, x) := sin(x) - cos(y)
>
> you will be defining f(x)=2 or f(x)=q^5+q^2-1, which is probably not what
> you had in mind.
This is probably why all arguments of coerce-float-funs are replaced by
gensysms, i am referring to the example i displayed previously.
--
Michel Talon