>> It would be good to know (and best specified in the code) even if
>> it is not intended to be visible to an enduser.
> BTW2: Such details as internal representation of Liouvillian
> functions are normally left undocumented, because documentation
> encourages users to depend on such details and they are subject to
> change.
I usually distinguish between documentation for users (that's
essentially what should go into the ++ docstrings) and for programmers.
Both are important and useful. Of course, everything that is not in
explicitly part of the API (i.e. the ++ docstring) is subject to change
any time.
> In fact, '%iint' may be gone in few years (or even months if you are
> optimistic):
I have certainly nothing against removing %iint from FriCAS users, but
currently, without any documentation, it basically says that FriCAS
cannot integrate that expression.
So as a short term fix we have two options:
(1) before returning a result, FriCAS checks whether it contains %iint
and if yes, then returns "not integrable" in elementary functions.
(2) Add a "where" expression to the result that says what the %iint
expression stands for or (until %iint disappears in a few months)
explain in in ++ docstrings of "integrate" (with a note that %iint
might be gone in the future).
I somewhat would prefer (2). But we should do something about %iint now.
Ralf
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"FriCAS - computer algebra system" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/fricas-devel/4906eed0-72fa-62eb-d904-45fc5bfd14f4%40hemmecke.org.
