bug in continued fraction expansion ? / applying patches

On 6/1/2012 8:46 AM, Robert Dodier wrote:
> On 2012-05-31, Stavros Macrakis<macrakis at alum.mit.edu>  wrote:
>
>> It is easy to load a single function or file into a running Maxima today.
>>
>> What I think RJF is pointing out is that if only a diff is distributed,
>> it's unclear what exactly to load.  I'd think you could apply the diff to
>> the source file then load that file or the individual function; an
>> opportunity for a small-but-useful Python or Emacs Lisp function?
> Yes, such a more-or-less automatic patching system could be useful. I
> wonder if it would know about Git or just patches. I wouldn't be
> surprised if such a thing has already been created for Python or Lisp.
>
> best
>
> Robert Dodier
>
> _______________________________________________
> Maxima mailing list
> Maxima at math.utexas.edu
> http://www.math.utexas.edu/mailman/listinfo/maxima
Here is the kind of thing that would be useful.  You come up with
a good idea that other people might want to try out without
recompiling maxima etc etc.   Create a file that can be read in
like this:


;;; file defining new feature  xxx
;;; written by <author> <date>
;;; tested in Maxima <version>


(in-package :maxima)

;;; redefine two functions in file simp.lisp

(defun simpexpt ....)

(defun simplifya ....)


;;; redefine a function in file sinit.lisp

(defun coefplus  ....)

;;; define some new functions not resident anywhere yet, but maybe
;;; should be in file float.lisp

(defun xxx ....) ;; <author> <date>


;;; end of file


................
I continue to object generally to patches and files whose authorship can be
discerned only by examining the separate change logs, so any alterations
to pre-existing functions should have comments identifying authors, too.