Dear Waldek,
Waldek Hebisch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In all places where isExpt is used for operators which have different number
> of arguments than 1 we need to insert explicit tests for operator and number
> of arguments.
I just did a quick check who uses isExpt with two arguments:
grep -nH -e "isExpt([^,]*,[^,]*)" *
algfunc.spad.pamphlet:449: (u := isExpt(x, oproot)) case Record(var:K,
exponent:Z) =>
combfunc.spad.pamphlet:521: (u := isExpt(x := first l, OPEXP)) case
"failed" => kernel(oppow, l)
combfunc.spad.pamphlet:548: (u := isExpt(x, OPEXP)) case "failed" =>
kernel(oppow, l)
elemntry.spad.pamphlet:666: (u := isExpt(x, opexp)) case Record(var:K,
exponent:Integer) =>
manip.spad.pamphlet:374: (u := isExpt(x, op)) case "failed" =>
kernel(op, [x, n::F])
transsolve.spad.pamphlet:199: (u:=isExpt(f,"exp"::Symbol)) case
Record(var:Kernel RE,exponent:Integer) =>
(the other results are just the definitions in fspace.spad)
I think it would be best to remove the two argument form of isExpt entirely, or
1) leave it as it was and clarify the documentation:
isExpt:(%,OP) -> Union(Record(var:K,exponent:Z),"failed")
++ isExpt(p,op) returns \spad{[x, n]} if \spad{p = x**n}
++ and \spad{n <> 0} and \spad{x = op(a1,a2,...)}.
2) and do the check for the number of arguments outside.
The usage with second argument being a symbol (in manip.spad) looks
particularly fishy to me, and I think it should be removed in any case.
I'll look at this a little later.
Martin
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"FriCAS - computer algebra system" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/fricas-devel?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
