List Archives >
Maple User Group List Archive >
Archive by date >
This Month By Date >
This Month By Topic
[MUG] neutral operator
| [MUG] neutral operator |
|
Author: Jean-Pierre Douris
Posted: 14/11/2000 10:18:18 GMT
|
>> From: Jean-Pierre Douris
I'am working with MapleV release 5.1
what about this bug?
> restart;
> solve(ln(x)/x=0);
1
Ok it's correct
> unprotect(`&*`);
> `&*`:=proc(a,b);a+b;end;
&* := proc(a, b) a + b end
> solve(ln(x)/x=0);
1
Ok it't correct
> restart;
> unprotect(`&*`);
> `&*`:=proc(a,b);a+b;end;
&* := proc(a, b) a + b end
> solve(ln(x)/x=0);
why I've nothing solution?
|
| [MUG] Re: neutral operator |
|
Author: Robert Israel
Posted: 23/11/2000 21:31:24 GMT
|
>> From: Robert Israel
I wouldn't call it a bug. Apparently somewhere in "solve", or in
something that "solve" calls, the `&*` operator is used. When you
redefine some name that has a standard meaning in Maple, you will
very likely break whatever uses that name. This is the whole
motivation for making some names protected. Maple does allow you to
override the protection, but when you do so it is at your own risk.
Robert Israel
Department of Mathematics http://www.math.ubc.ca/~israel
University of British Columbia
Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z2
On Tue, 14 Nov 2000, Jean-Pierre Douris wrote:
> I'am working with MapleV release 5.1
> what about this bug?
> > restart;
> > solve(ln(x)/x=0);
>
> 1
>
> Ok it's correct
> > unprotect(`&*`);
> > `&*`:=proc(a,b);a+b;end;
>
> &* := proc(a, b) a + b end
>
> > solve(ln(x)/x=0);
>
> 1
>
> Ok it't correct
> > restart;
> > unprotect(`&*`);
> > `&*`:=proc(a,b);a+b;end;
>
> &* := proc(a, b) a + b end
>
> > solve(ln(x)/x=0);
> why I've nothing solution?
>
>
>
|
| [MUG] Re: neutral operator |
|
Author: Ira Gessel
Posted: 29/11/2000 04:26:53 GMT
|
>> From: Ira Gessel
>>> From: Robert Israel
>
>I wouldn't call it a bug. Apparently somewhere in "solve", or in
>something that "solve" calls, the `&*` operator is used.
Maybe it's not a bug, but it certainly doesn't seem like a good design
choice. The whole point of the introduction of `&*`, at least as I
understood it, is that it allowed users to give their own definition to
a symbol that looks something like * and behaves syntactically
somewhat like *. `&*` is never really needed, but it can make things
easier if a user can type a &* b instead of myproduct(a,b). It's hard
to believe that the Maple designers really needed it for their own
inscrutable purposes.
Ira Gessel
|
Previous by date: [MUG] expand/bigprod: object too large, Roland Winkler
Next by date: [MUG] MCMC Example?, David Robinson
Previous thread: [MUG] solve with inequalities or conditions, Gnutzmann
Next thread: [MUG] MCMC Example?, David Robinson
|
Datasheet