RE: Re: Re: New version, new bugs
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg42657] RE: [mg42619] Re: [mg42582] Re: New version, new bugs
- From: "Prince-Wright, Robert G SEPCO" <robert.prince-wright at shell.com>
- Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2003 03:19:41 -0400 (EDT)
- Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com
Is this a critical or nagging bug? Probably not critical, and no doubt there are a thousand others like all major software platforms. I guess we all hope that Wolfram rank the severity of the bugs and prioritize the sequence in which get corrected. If so, they should make the process transparent to all by putting it on their website. I wonder what he liability implications are of leaving known and dangerous bugs in the program. It may not be enough to simply put a disclaimer against known error. -----Original Message----- From: Dr Bob [mailto:drbob at bigfoot.com] To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net Subject: [mg42657] [mg42619] Re: [mg42582] Re: New version, new bugs In version 5: N[Pi,20] InputForm@% 3.1415926535897932385 3.141592653589793238462643383\ 58737222874`20. InputForm[%,NumberMarks\[Rule]False] 3.1415926535897932385 But I agree the bug-reporting and repair process is broken. It needs to be much more transparent -- if what we think and feel counts for anything. Bobby On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 03:45:03 -0400 (EDT), Ersek, Ted R <ErsekTR at navair.navy.mil> wrote: > In response to some reported bugs Andrzej Kozlowski wrote: > I agree that the other bugs you mention are awful and ought to have been > fixed long ago. Some of them at least seem pretty trivial to fix and it > seems that the only reason why they haven't been fixed is that they were > never recorded on a "to be done" list. I feel that something is seriously > amiss when a reported bug that does not require a major re-write of the > kernel is not fixed: at least the person who reported it ought to be > given > an explanation why it has not been done. It looks to me that Wolfram's > entire bug-reporting system needs a serious reconsideration. ------------- > > > ------- > The Wolfram Research process for testing and fixing bugs is badly broken > at > Wolfram Research. For more evidence of this consider the following. The > Mathematica Book (4th edition) section 3.1.4 gives the following on page > 722. > > In[11]:=N[Pi,20] > Out[11]= 3.1415926535897932385 > > In[12]:=InputForm[%] > Out[12]//InputForm = 3.141592653589793238462643383279503`20 > > In[13]:= InputForm[%,NumberMarks->False] > Out[13]//InputForm = 3.1415926535897932385 > > > I am using Mathematica 4.1 under Windows 98, and I get Out[13]//InputForm > = InputForm[3.141592653589793238462643383279503`20, NumberMarks -> False] > from the last line above. > > > Someone at Wolfram said this probably works on the platform that was used > to > make The Mathematica Book. I reported this problem several months before > version 4.0 was released, and it still wasn't fixed even in version 4.1. > I > don't know if it works in version 4.2 or 5.0, but I wouldn't bet on it. > Shouldn't they be embarrassed that some versions of Mathematica can't do > something that is demonstrated in The Mathematica Book? I can't believe > fixing this would require a great deal of effort, and I find it appalling > that they can't be bothered to fix it. > > Regards, > > Ted Ersek > > -- majort at cox-internet.com Bobby R. Treat