From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?B?xaB0xJtww6FuIE7Em21lYw==?= Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Default simplifications in Calc (adding simplifications) Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 22:20:07 +0200 Message-ID: <87ehp9ka6g.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87r4tek4om.fsf@gmail.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1340223621 10444 80.91.229.3 (20 Jun 2012 20:20:21 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 20:20:21 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: jay.p.belanger@gmail.com Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Jun 20 22:20:21 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ShRNx-0005k1-J8 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 22:20:17 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51738 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ShRNx-0000xL-Gq for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:20:17 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:46941) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ShRNv-0000wy-Eh for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:20:16 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ShRNt-0005oF-Np for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:20:15 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-wi0-f171.google.com ([209.85.212.171]:61114) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ShRNt-0005nk-F6 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 16:20:13 -0400 Original-Received: by wibhi8 with SMTP id hi8so1586393wib.12 for ; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 13:20:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:cc:subject:in-reply-to:references:user-agent:date :message-id:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=3a7M3GNyb10muqbUh0gPGZq5Y7qYAvAf/jNMcL48yRU=; b=I5/LhEujw2t80JPGFrxc6tLEhkovfZP9WuDoYqFLm7UmDZaEsnhd9Ph+kXNzvLxhAV iRWo9/u8Vmce6O9pJjZE32KE2e4YBM8nZFR7dLFPl5O6XnkoRtp9RLOGBzjnc9jL1Wnt O5pUEGk+EJMv9heC4N+JYNi4Ps0bZq9h2/h6NjKwWCczfZHB+morLVFbhCMuqjRigRFU yXlUEkR1N3ZA0BUsk4C/xh39t9ms7T2wL9M0cM/4effzXYeURLQMzqgYHuSLFnKGzGX2 0sP9KFh2ZNB9iEQ7xfuOMdwALgKtw4IvRuVzc73cHEUpNLG7aQLvf/FrYaaODKGxnvmT C07A== Original-Received: by 10.180.83.196 with SMTP id s4mr14484803wiy.15.1340223610554; Wed, 20 Jun 2012 13:20:10 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from localhost (176.119.broadband10.iol.cz. [90.177.119.176]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fo7sm41043154wib.9.2012.06.20.13.20.08 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Wed, 20 Jun 2012 13:20:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87r4tek4om.fsf@gmail.com> (Jay Belanger's message of "Sat, 16 Jun 2012 22:17:29 -0500") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 209.85.212.171 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:151060 Archived-At: On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 22:17:29 -0500 Jay Belanger wrote: > I'm wondering if anyone has any opinions on moving some algebraic > simplifications to Calc's default simplifications. I'm just a casual Calc user, but considering the lack of other answers, I figured something might be better than nothing. I agree the simplifications should be done by default. I believe that even to someone who never used Calc, things like > * Calc will simplify `x+x+y' to `2x+y' but will not simplify `x+y+x', must seem strange (inconsistent from a user's standpoint). Personally I can't imagine why anyone would _not_ want the simplifications done, esp. if they don't incur any (noticeable) performance loss. Thanks, =C5=A0t=C4=9Bp=C3=A1n