# [Maxima] common lisp complex numbers, also common lisp rational numbers

Stavros Macrakis macrakis at alum.mit.edu
Thu Mar 1 12:20:51 CST 2012

```I wouldn't say that "the intermixing of Maxima rationals and CL rationals
has bugs", but simply that "CL rationals and complexes are not supported as
part of Maxima expressions".  As far as I know, there has been no
systematic effort to change this.

-s

On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 13:17, Richard Fateman <fateman at eecs.berkeley.edu>wrote:

> sometimes these may come up, from lisp routines.  Or you can create them
> in maxima
> this way:
>
>  A:  ?complex(1,2)
>
> Should numberp(A)  return true?  (it doesn't).
>
> It is certainly a tricky situation to deal with, generally... should
> a complex constant like 1+2*%i   be stored in common lisp as #c(1 2)...
> which has various positive aspects, mostly having to do with numerics.
>
>  but has the negative aspects that
>
> 1.  the re and im parts must be lisp number constants and that excludes
> bigfloats.
> 2.  it also excludes symbolic re and im parts.
>
> I think numberp(A) should return true if ?numberp(A) returns true  [it
> does]..
> that is, every common lisp number should be a number to Maxima as well.
>
> Oh, CL rational numbers might also be allowed as Maxima numbers too.
>
> Here's a confusing situation...
>
> :lisp (setf \$aa 1/2)
>
> aa+1/3
>
> returns 5/2/3
>
> So the intermixing of Maxima rationals and CL rationals has bugs.
> But we knew this.
>
> RJF
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Maxima mailing list
> Maxima at math.utexas.edu
> http://www.math.utexas.edu/**mailman/listinfo/maxima<http://www.math.utexas.edu/mailman/listinfo/maxima>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.math.utexas.edu/pipermail/maxima/attachments/20120301/b5852094/attachment-0001.html>
```