Re: [Maxima-discuss] sub expression with missing simp flags.

[Stavros M. <mac...@al...>]

The test suite should probably check that all outputs are:

   - Fully flagged with simp flags.
   - Unchanged when resimplified with expand(expr,0,0).
      - Exception: factor(24) can best be tested with string(factor(24)),
      since args(factor(24)) tests correct with both [2^2,3] and [4,3] --
      admittedly, factor(<number>) is a hack.
      - Other cases?
   - Exactly as given -- the expected results should *not* be simplified
   before comparing, because that misses bugs in simplification. For example,
   the test *a+x* accepts both *a+x *and *x+a *as correct, even though only
   *x+a* is correctly ordered. For some new simplifications I'm working on,
   I have had to use the string() trick to test them.
   - We also need some tests for output form. This is easy for the 1d form
   using *string*, harder for 2d form.

Best,

             -s

On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 11:48 AM Robert Dodier <rob...@gm...>
wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 25, 2021 at 4:59 AM Barton Willis via Maxima-discuss
> <max...@li...> wrote:
>
> > Maybe all this is trifling, All advice is welcomed.
>
> Hi Barton, thanks for working on this stuff. My general feeling is
> that we should strive for correctness first. In this case I think it
> means that the expression returned from simplification should be fully
> simplified -- the simplest way to ensure that is to resimplify
> anything missing a SIMP flag, so even if that leads to operations
> which are almost always unneeded, we should go ahead and do it.
>
> The stuff around simplification of complex expressions is pretty
> complex, so in the interest of comprehending what is going on, we
> would best strive for predictability of results. Some small part of
> that is to ensure every result is fully simplified.
>
> Hope this helps,
>
> Robert
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Maxima-discuss mailing list
> Max...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/maxima-discuss
>