[Maxima] Program stack overflow defining infix operator
sen1 at math.msu.edu
Sun Aug 9 14:11:09 CDT 2009
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
> Sorry, I don't care. "It has been messed up for decades" doesn't
> carry any weight for me.
> Robert Dodier
> Maxima mailing list
> Maxima at math.utexas.edu
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.
More information about the Maxima