|
From: Stavros M. (Σ. Μ. <mac...@al...> - 2015-12-12 23:01:25
|
I agree that we should be able to define a generic scheme for display of
function calls, probably going beyond just the four surrounding positions.
The display scheme should be general enough to allow the user to define the
display of
hypergeometric ([a1, ..., ap],[b1, ... ,bq], x)
as
[image: Inline image 1]
or
[image: Inline image 2]
In particular, this means that the scheme should cover the case where some
of the display properties are *calculated* (p and q above are redundant:
they are just the lengths of the a[i] and b[i] lists).
-s
On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 4:26 PM, Robert Dodier <rob...@gm...>
wrote:
> It occurs to me that another approach to generalized placement of
> indices is to continue with trailing square brackets to indicate
> indices, but then declare that some indices go before instead of after,
> and some are above instead of below. So a variable with indices in all
> four places would be entered as A[k, l, m, n] or whatever and then there
> would be
>
> put (A, '[subscript, superscript, presubscript, presuperscript],
> 'display_indices);
>
> or something like that. Of course not all indices need be present, e.g.:
>
> put (B, '[presubscript, subscript], 'display_indices);
>
> for a two-index B[m, n], let's say. Pretty-printing display programs
> (e.g. 2-d display in Maxima or wxMaxima's XML stuff or TeX) would look
> for those properties and make use of them if present. Computational code
> would have no idea such properties exist, as we would hope. Readable
> output (i.e. 'grind') would be unaffected, again as we would hope.
>
> I think a scheme like this would actually be pretty easy to implement.
>
> best
>
> Robert Dodier
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Maxima-discuss mailing list
> Max...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/maxima-discuss
>
|