You can subscribe to this list here.
2009 
_{Jan}
(2) 
_{Feb}
(5) 
_{Mar}

_{Apr}

_{May}
(2) 
_{Jun}
(8) 
_{Jul}
(4) 
_{Aug}

_{Sep}

_{Oct}
(2) 
_{Nov}
(6) 
_{Dec}


2010 
_{Jan}
(1) 
_{Feb}
(1) 
_{Mar}
(3) 
_{Apr}
(2) 
_{May}
(2) 
_{Jun}
(2) 
_{Jul}
(18) 
_{Aug}
(13) 
_{Sep}
(7) 
_{Oct}

_{Nov}

_{Dec}
(2) 
2011 
_{Jan}

_{Feb}
(11) 
_{Mar}

_{Apr}
(4) 
_{May}

_{Jun}
(1) 
_{Jul}
(18) 
_{Aug}
(16) 
_{Sep}
(12) 
_{Oct}
(12) 
_{Nov}
(19) 
_{Dec}
(42) 
2012 
_{Jan}
(16) 
_{Feb}
(3) 
_{Mar}
(8) 
_{Apr}
(14) 
_{May}
(30) 
_{Jun}
(5) 
_{Jul}
(7) 
_{Aug}
(3) 
_{Sep}
(10) 
_{Oct}
(4) 
_{Nov}
(10) 
_{Dec}
(1) 
2013 
_{Jan}
(14) 
_{Feb}
(8) 
_{Mar}
(5) 
_{Apr}
(3) 
_{May}
(9) 
_{Jun}
(19) 
_{Jul}

_{Aug}
(27) 
_{Sep}
(5) 
_{Oct}
(18) 
_{Nov}
(12) 
_{Dec}
(8) 
2014 
_{Jan}
(5) 
_{Feb}
(8) 
_{Mar}
(20) 
_{Apr}
(22) 
_{May}
(28) 
_{Jun}
(9) 
_{Jul}
(1) 
_{Aug}

_{Sep}

_{Oct}

_{Nov}

_{Dec}

S  M  T  W  T  F  S 




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23
(3) 
24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31


From: Rainer Schöpf <rainer.schoepf@gm...>  20120823 20:08:56

On Thu, 23 Aug 2012 at 20:24 +0100, Arthur Norman wrote: > Thank you for both the bug report and for pointing out exactly where > something needed changing. The problem arose because a floating point > number ends up represented internally by something that is a "sort of" > prefix form but the data in it is chain terminating on a number not on > "nil". So freeof!dfl [as you observed] crashed on it. Umm. This gets around the crashing, but freeof!df doesn't process correctly special prefix forms in its first parameter. Consider: load_package sum; operator f; lisp freeof!df(aeval '(df (f u v) u v),'v); % > t lisp freeof!df(reval '(df (f u v) u v),'v); % > nil although both should evaluate to nil. So I propose something like symbolic procedure freeof!df(u, v); % check u contains differential operator with respect to v; if atom u or car u eq '!:dn!: or get(car u,'dname) then t else if car u eq '!*sq then freeof!df(prepsq cadr u,v) else if car(u) eq 'df then freeof!df(cadr u,v) and not smember(v,cddr u) else freeof!dfl(cdr u,v); Rainer 
From: Arthur Norman <acn1@ca...>  20120823 19:25:11

Thank you for both the bug report and for pointing out exactly where something needed changing. The problem arose because a floating point number ends up represented internally by something that is a "sort of" prefix form but the data in it is chain terminating on a number not on "nil". So freeof!dfl [as you observed] crashed on it. I have checked in a varient on your correction  hope that now works better for you. Arthur On Thu, 23 Aug 2012, Simon Weitzhofer wrote: > Hi, > > Evaluating > > > on rounded; > > sum(x**0.5,x,1,2) > > yields an error: > > ++++ Attempt to take car of an atom > > +++++ Error: Attempt to take car of an atom > > The problem seems to be the function freeofdfl(u,v) in the file sum.red > since defining > > symbolic procedure freeof!dfl(u, v); > if null u or atom u then t else freeof!df(car u,v) and > freeof!dfl(cdr u,v); > > instead of > > symbolic procedure freeof!dfl(u, v); > if null u then t else freeof!df(car u,v) and freeof!dfl(cdr u,v); > > solves the problem. > > Best wishes, > Simon > >  > Live Security Virtual Conference > Exclusive live event will cover all the ways today's security and > threat landscape has changed and how IT managers can respond. Discussions > will include endpoint security, mobile security and the latest in malware > threats. http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfrnl04242012/114/50122263/ > _______________________________________________ > Reducealgebradevelopers mailing list > Reducealgebradevelopers@... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/reducealgebradevelopers > 
From: Simon Weitzhofer <simon@ge...>  20120823 16:55:21

Hi, Evaluating > on rounded; > sum(x**0.5,x,1,2) yields an error: ++++ Attempt to take car of an atom +++++ Error: Attempt to take car of an atom The problem seems to be the function freeofdfl(u,v) in the file sum.red since defining symbolic procedure freeof!dfl(u, v); if null u or atom u then t else freeof!df(car u,v) and freeof!dfl(cdr u,v); instead of symbolic procedure freeof!dfl(u, v); if null u then t else freeof!df(car u,v) and freeof!dfl(cdr u,v); solves the problem. Best wishes, Simon 