oldk1331 wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 1:05 AM, Waldek Hebisch
> wrote:
> > oldk1331 wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 9:15 PM, Waldek Hebisch
> >> wrote:
> >> > AFAICS several patches make code more complicated, I am not
> >> > shure if we want such changes.
> >>
> >> Yes, some patc
On Thu, Apr 19, 2018 at 1:05 AM, Waldek Hebisch
wrote:
> oldk1331 wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 9:15 PM, Waldek Hebisch
>> wrote:
>> > AFAICS several patches make code more complicated, I am not
>> > shure if we want such changes.
>>
>> Yes, some patches make code longer, but not necessari
oldk1331 wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 9:15 PM, Waldek Hebisch
> wrote:
> > AFAICS several patches make code more complicated, I am not
> > shure if we want such changes.
>
> Yes, some patches make code longer, but not necessarily more
> complicated. I use the most natural algorithm accord
On Mon, Apr 16, 2018 at 9:15 PM, Waldek Hebisch
wrote:
> AFAICS several patches make code more complicated, I am not
> shure if we want such changes.
Yes, some patches make code longer, but not necessarily more
complicated. I use the most natural algorithm according to FR's
Rep: most functions t
On 04/16/2018 03:15 PM, Waldek Hebisch wrote:
> AFAICS several patches make code more complicated, I am not
> shure if we want such changes. In particular, while in
> Factored exponents should be nonnegative it make perfect
> mathematical sense to also have negative exponents.
> To make things mor
AFAICS several patches make code more complicated, I am not
shure if we want such changes. In particular, while in
Factored exponents should be nonnegative it make perfect
mathematical sense to also have negative exponents.
To make things more clean we could have a separete domain
allowing negativ
