[Maxima] Lisp stack overflow
willisb at unk.edu
Sun Jun 13 10:10:43 CDT 2010
By the way: The function neg is defined in opers.lisp as
(defmfun neg (x)
(cond ((numberp x) (- x))
(t (let (($negdistrib t))
(simplifya `((mtimes) -1 ,x) t)))))
This seems OK--if x isn't simplified, maybe the neg can return an unsimplified result.
-----Richard Fateman <fateman at cs.berkeley.edu> wrote: -----
>To: Barton Willis <willisb at unk.edu>
>From: Richard Fateman <fateman at cs.berkeley.edu>
>Date: 06/13/2010 09:09AM
>cc: Raymond Toy <toy.raymond at gmail.com>, maxima at math.utexas.edu
>Subject: Re: [Maxima] Lisp stack overflow
>If neg produces simplified results, then this would be a bug in 'great'.
>and it would have to be fixed.
>I assumed neg had a bug in it and that it doesn't produce simplified
>and that replacing neg as Barton suggests would fix it.
> :lisp (defun neg(x)(mul x -1))
>and see if that fixes it. But that doesn't fix it.
>So the bug is in great, involving mboxes.
>Rather than clutter great with more checks on mboxes, a feature that is
>maybe we can simply decide that ((mbox) E) is 'greater' than E, and
>all special checks on mboxes.
More information about the Maxima