Re: More /.{I->-1} craziness
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg106349] Re: More /.{I->-1} craziness
- From: Bill Rowe <readnews at sbcglobal.net>
- Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2010 03:28:36 -0500 (EST)
On 1/8/10 at 4:15 AM, fateman at cs.berkeley.edu (Richard Fateman) wrote: >Bill Rowe said ... >"Again, the choice is either understand this behavior and live with >it or find different software. There isn't any other productive >choice." >Well, reporting something as a bug and hoping it will be fixed is >another choice. Reporting a behavior that works as designed as a bug and hoping it will be "fixed" seems very unproductive to me. What is there to "fix" if the program performs as designed? >And writing a version of the facility that does the >right thing is another choice. (Any takers?) It seems to me, the effort to do this for replacement rules and ensure the result doesn't cause other problems is far greater than the effort needed to understand the current design and use it to get your desired result. >Either of these could be "productive". This is highly debatable. >Are Mathematica design decisions sacred or something? Of course Mathematica design decisions are not sacred. But it is highly desirable new versions of Mathematica run code written for earlier versions. Altering design decisions almost certainly means the new version will not run some code written for earlier versions. So, altering design decisions is not something that should be done lightly. I don't believe the existence of users who have not yet taken the time to understand the current design is sufficient cause to change the current design. Nor do I think you have made a strong enough case to warrant a design change in this case. But on this second point, I am not the one who needs to be convinced. It is someone at WRI who could actually implement a change and their management.