Re: [Maxima-discuss] index properties and define/funmake

[Raymond T. <toy...@gm...>]

On 1/9/26 9:40 AM, Stavros Macrakis wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 6:56 PM Robert Dodier <rob...@gm...> 
> wrote:
>
>     On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 3:18 PM Stavros Macrakis
>     <mac...@gm...> wrote:
>
>     > As Fateman points out, no common programming languages support
>     subscripted formal variables, for all the good reasons you give.
>
>     That's a pretty weak argument, isn't it? There's already all kinds of
>     stuff in Maxima that doesn't exist in other languages; that's kind of
>     the point of having different languages.
>
>
> You gave the reasons in your mail. Some more examples:
>
> Does *i:3$ f(x[i]):=...* define *f(x[i])* or *f(x[3])*? I don't think 
> it can define *f(x[3])*, because then how would the body of the 
> definition "know" the value of *i *at the time it is called? Even if 
> we had lexical scope, what would *block([i], i:3,* *f(x[i]):=..., i:4, 
> f(x[i]), ...) *do?
>
> Does *f(x[i]):=block([i:3], x[i])* return the value of the formal 
> *x[i]*? Or *x[3]*?
>
> What does *f(x[2]):=sum(x[i],i,1,3) *return?
>
> etc. Basically, it complicates the semantics for no purpose that has 
> been articulated yet.

I didn't study all of the various proposals, but I would prefer simple 
things instead of clever things because I'm not clever enough to 
remember them all. But I also don't do all that much programming in the 
Maxima language.

&#8203;