@Christopher2222 

Yes, common sense says that the default should be false (in not overriding the user-specified horizontal range). But you see, it may take time until it permeates some mind...

@Mac Dude 

That disambiguation dialog box is a peculiarity of the 2-D math input mode...

@Mac Dude 

That disambiguation dialog box is a peculiarity of the 2-D math input mode...

Acer's advice is very good, and should be taken into account by the developers of the Maple library. Also nicely.

Acer's advice is very good, and should be taken into account by the developers of the Maple library. Also nicely.

Indeed, such planning would be desirable. But I wonder how far it could be implemented or be compatible with an "organization" depending  on code developed by contracts, within the academic environment, as part of student thesis or research projects.

Yes, but Maple development process is rather dispersed and erratic. Consequently, the most liklely situation is of multiple commands and packages with the same or similar functionality developed at different times, or even simultaneously, all coexisting (or accumulating), with little or no interoperability. And the quality of the code and documentation in different sectors of the system is quite uneven, depending mostly on the developers, as there is no real quality control.. 

Certainly, in a Mac your choices are limited to the Standard GUI or the CLI.

The Standard GUI has diverse problems when handling large outputs, long worksheets and big plots or animations.You may find many reports of such issues in this site. As I see it, the cause is Its design, not optimized for serious programming, heavy usage scenarios. 

There is a latex command producing the LaTeX form of an expression, but it has also design problems and bugs, and it is not well maintained. Actually, you may also find in this site many requests for a better LateX facility, and even user developed alternatives. You may try, but I get in the Standard GUI the message:

> latex(SC3);
          [Length of output exceeds limit of 1000000]

while an output is being produced in the CLI after several minutes. Probably, for expressions of this size, it could be more productive handling more compact representations. Check for instance ?LargeExpressions[Veil] .

Certainly, in a Mac your choices are limited to the Standard GUI or the CLI.

The Standard GUI has diverse problems when handling large outputs, long worksheets and big plots or animations.You may find many reports of such issues in this site. As I see it, the cause is Its design, not optimized for serious programming, heavy usage scenarios. 

There is a latex command producing the LaTeX form of an expression, but it has also design problems and bugs, and it is not well maintained. Actually, you may also find in this site many requests for a better LateX facility, and even user developed alternatives. You may try, but I get in the Standard GUI the message:

> latex(SC3);
          [Length of output exceeds limit of 1000000]

while an output is being produced in the CLI after several minutes. Probably, for expressions of this size, it could be more productive handling more compact representations. Check for instance ?LargeExpressions[Veil] .

No, the output of lprint is one-dimensional text form. For a typesetted 2-D output, probably, the Classic GUI is the best option.

No, the output of lprint is one-dimensional text form. For a typesetted 2-D output, probably, the Classic GUI is the best option.

About the size of the system. in the pdf documentation for the mgrep tool, dated February 2008, Joe Riel gives an estimate of 30000 procedures in the Maple main library. Because of the date, presumably, this is for Maple 11 or earlier. Something like 10 procedures per user level command, in the mean.

May be that this issue was classified as an 'annoyance'?

As acer has an inclination for efficiency issues, I add a brief note. For the original 8x8 matrix, N=8, I have compared simplify +  side relation with the applyrule approach for the "full" simplification of the matrix terms to the form p or p*omega, where p is a 4th root of the unity. I have got these results:

> CodeTools:-Usage(simplify(F,{omega^(N/4)=I}));
memory used=2.19MiB, alloc change=8.00MiB, cpu time=37.00ms, real time=34.00ms

> CodeTools:-Usage(subs(`&*`=`*`,map2(applyrule1,r,F,2)));
memory used=1.03MiB, alloc change=0 bytes, cpu time=20.00ms, real time=19.00ms

Just a comment here on the second statement. I have used a custom variation of applyrule that applies the rules just once by default or any other given number of times, in this case 2. And the neutral operator `&*` is being used in a rule for avoiding premature automatic simplification. Certainly, the rules r (not shown here) are somewhat long (3 lines say), a fact that stresses the need for a mathematical pattern matcher. But yet, I was somewhat surprised at seeing the rule method operating much more efficiently both in time and memory.

As acer has an inclination for efficiency issues, I add a brief note. For the original 8x8 matrix, N=8, I have compared simplify +  side relation with the applyrule approach for the "full" simplification of the matrix terms to the form p or p*omega, where p is a 4th root of the unity. I have got these results:

> CodeTools:-Usage(simplify(F,{omega^(N/4)=I}));
memory used=2.19MiB, alloc change=8.00MiB, cpu time=37.00ms, real time=34.00ms

> CodeTools:-Usage(subs(`&*`=`*`,map2(applyrule1,r,F,2)));
memory used=1.03MiB, alloc change=0 bytes, cpu time=20.00ms, real time=19.00ms

Just a comment here on the second statement. I have used a custom variation of applyrule that applies the rules just once by default or any other given number of times, in this case 2. And the neutral operator `&*` is being used in a rule for avoiding premature automatic simplification. Certainly, the rules r (not shown here) are somewhat long (3 lines say), a fact that stresses the need for a mathematical pattern matcher. But yet, I was somewhat surprised at seeing the rule method operating much more efficiently both in time and memory.