Recent changes to 498: ('[a,b,c])[2] and ('v)[2]http://sourceforge.net/p/maxima/bugs/498/Recent changes to 498: ('[a,b,c])[2] and ('v)[2]enWed, 28 Jan 2004 18:34:21 -0000('[a,b,c])[2] and ('v)[2]http://sourceforge.net/p/maxima/bugs/498/arrayapply\('\[a,b\],\[2\]\) => b OK
\('\[a,b\]\)\[2\] =>
Illegal form - SIMPLIFYA:
\(\(\(\(MLIST\) |$a| |$b|\)\) 2\)
cf bug 866706: \('m\)\[1\] => m\(2\), not v\[2\]
What is going on here is that Maxima wants to treat
\('f\)\(x\) == funmake\('f,\[x\]\) == apply\('\('f\),\[x\]\)
which I find a very poor convention, because it means
that the \(...\)\(...\) construction is non-compositional.
After all,
\('f+0\)\(x\) == apply\('f,\[x\]\)
So, ... how do you explain this? Do you consider \('...\)\(\)
== \('\(...\)\)\(\) to be a special \*syntactic\* construction,
even though the parser doesn't parse it into any sort of
special internal form? Yuck, yuck, yuck.
The fact that apply\('\('f\),...\) is special-cased is less
problematic, but still weird, since apply\('\('f+0\),...\) does
the same thing, though apply\('\(factor\('fff\)\),\[x\]\) gives an
error. More yuck.
Ayway it doesn't use funmake to construct the result,
so screws up the error.
I am not sure what the best fix is. I am tempted to
completely eliminate \('f\)\(x\) and apply\('\('f\)...\) as special
cases. Then everything "just works". True, you need to
use funmake to avoid evaluating, but that should be OK.
Stavros MacrakisWed, 28 Jan 2004 18:34:21 -0000http://sourceforge.nete99c5cb5d2a04b37090efebd5b631d295dc32155