## [Reduce-algebra-developers] REDUCE error complaints

 [Reduce-algebra-developers] REDUCE error complaints From: Jarmo Hietarinta - 2013-06-19 14:08:04 ```Dear REDUCE developers, > There are maybe several categories of Reduce users: > (1) One where however large or serious their work is it happens that > recent upgrades and bug-fixes are not especially important for their > usage. Such people can range from small scale casual users to those who > have used Reduce since the 1970s - if versions from the 70s, 80s and 90s > were useful for them it could be that increments over the last while are > not that vital but stability may matter more! I belong to this category, having worked with Reduce since 1982 and still almost daily. I am glad to know that Reduce is still being developed and bugs fixed. I wonder whether you could with the new version also eliminate some annoying features, namely: 1) When I give command part(xx,yy) and xx does not have that many parts, Reduce respond by printing the whole (humongous) expression *** Expression a**12 + 12*a**11*(b + c + d + 1) + 66*a**10*(b**2 + 2*b*c + 2*b*d ----------- hundreds of lines ------------- 10 + 220*d**9 + 495*d**8 + 792*d**7 + 924*d**6 + 792*d**5 + 495*d**4 + 220*d**3 + 66*d**2 + 12*d + 1 does not have part 500 Printing the long expression prevents me from seeing previous calculation and is not very informative either. It would be quite sufficient to print "*** The expression given does not have part 500" The same behaviour is with "factorize" and perhaps it is a deep general feature. The default should be a more laconic error statement without printing the whole expression. 2) Reduce (Free CSL version), 14-Apr-11 ... 1: solve(x+y^2+z*x,x); 2 - y {x=-------} z + 1 2: let ws; *** Please use => instead of = in rules ------- Since solve gives its output with "=" it should be acceptable to use "let" without instructions of better typing. 3) 6: ws/x^4; 4 4 3 2 3 3 3 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 6 x *z + 4*x *y *z + 4*x *z + 6*x *y *z + 12*x *y *z + 6*x *z + 4*x*y *z 4 2 8 6 4 2 + 12*x*y *z + 12*x*y *z + 4*x*z + y + 4*y + 6*y + 4*y + 1 7: coeff(ws,x,ty); ***** ID fill no longer supported --- use lists instead *** ty4 ty3 ty2 ty1 ty0 are non zero 4 ----- I am using ID fill all the time, so I do hope that it is supported in the future as well. with best wishes for the developers, Jarmo ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Jarmo Hietarinta Department of Physics and Astronomy University of Turku, FIN-20014 Turku, Finland mobile: +358-40-722 5685 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ```

 [Reduce-algebra-developers] REDUCE error complaints From: Jarmo Hietarinta - 2013-06-19 14:08:04 ```Dear REDUCE developers, > There are maybe several categories of Reduce users: > (1) One where however large or serious their work is it happens that > recent upgrades and bug-fixes are not especially important for their > usage. Such people can range from small scale casual users to those who > have used Reduce since the 1970s - if versions from the 70s, 80s and 90s > were useful for them it could be that increments over the last while are > not that vital but stability may matter more! I belong to this category, having worked with Reduce since 1982 and still almost daily. I am glad to know that Reduce is still being developed and bugs fixed. I wonder whether you could with the new version also eliminate some annoying features, namely: 1) When I give command part(xx,yy) and xx does not have that many parts, Reduce respond by printing the whole (humongous) expression *** Expression a**12 + 12*a**11*(b + c + d + 1) + 66*a**10*(b**2 + 2*b*c + 2*b*d ----------- hundreds of lines ------------- 10 + 220*d**9 + 495*d**8 + 792*d**7 + 924*d**6 + 792*d**5 + 495*d**4 + 220*d**3 + 66*d**2 + 12*d + 1 does not have part 500 Printing the long expression prevents me from seeing previous calculation and is not very informative either. It would be quite sufficient to print "*** The expression given does not have part 500" The same behaviour is with "factorize" and perhaps it is a deep general feature. The default should be a more laconic error statement without printing the whole expression. 2) Reduce (Free CSL version), 14-Apr-11 ... 1: solve(x+y^2+z*x,x); 2 - y {x=-------} z + 1 2: let ws; *** Please use => instead of = in rules ------- Since solve gives its output with "=" it should be acceptable to use "let" without instructions of better typing. 3) 6: ws/x^4; 4 4 3 2 3 3 3 2 4 2 2 2 2 2 2 6 x *z + 4*x *y *z + 4*x *z + 6*x *y *z + 12*x *y *z + 6*x *z + 4*x*y *z 4 2 8 6 4 2 + 12*x*y *z + 12*x*y *z + 4*x*z + y + 4*y + 6*y + 4*y + 1 7: coeff(ws,x,ty); ***** ID fill no longer supported --- use lists instead *** ty4 ty3 ty2 ty1 ty0 are non zero 4 ----- I am using ID fill all the time, so I do hope that it is supported in the future as well. with best wishes for the developers, Jarmo ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prof. Jarmo Hietarinta Department of Physics and Astronomy University of Turku, FIN-20014 Turku, Finland mobile: +358-40-722 5685 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ```
 Re: [Reduce-algebra-developers] REDUCE error complaints From: Rainer Schöpf - 2013-06-29 00:06:05 ```On Wed, 19 Jun 2013 at 14:07 -0000, Jarmo Hietarinta wrote: > Dear REDUCE developers, > > > There are maybe several categories of Reduce users: > > (1) One where however large or serious their work is it happens that > > recent upgrades and bug-fixes are not especially important for their > > usage. Such people can range from small scale casual users to those who > > have used Reduce since the 1970s - if versions from the 70s, 80s and 90s > > were useful for them it could be that increments over the last while are > > not that vital but stability may matter more! > > I belong to this category, having worked with Reduce since 1982 and still almost daily. > I am glad to know that Reduce is still being developed and bugs fixed. > > I wonder whether you could with the new version also eliminate some annoying features, namely: > > 1) When I give command part(xx,yy) and xx does not have that many parts, Reduce respond by printing the whole (humongous) expression > > *** Expression a**12 + 12*a**11*(b + c + d + 1) + 66*a**10*(b**2 + 2*b*c + 2*b*d > ----------- hundreds of lines ------------- > 10 + 220*d**9 + 495*d**8 + 792*d**7 + 924*d**6 + 792*d**5 + 495*d**4 + 220*d**3 > + 66*d**2 + 12*d + 1 does not have part 500 > > Printing the long expression prevents me from seeing previous calculation and is not very informative either. > It would be quite sufficient to print "*** The expression given does not have part 500" > > The same behaviour is with "factorize" and perhaps it is a deep general feature. > The default should be a more laconic error statement without printing the whole expression. That's a good idea, at least in interactive mode. I think we should store the expression in some global variable and print something like *** Expression errexpr!* does not have part 500 With "off int", I'd rather print the complete expression. Note that the whole error printing mechanism needs some work; we've just come across another cases where the error message is lost completely when an error is caught. Storing the expression would help here as well. Rainer ```