Certainly, it is the kernel who sends that warning message. Below is a bit of the capture of the TCP dialog between Maple 13 Classic GUI and the kernel through 127.0.0.1 when executing:

1+1;
                                  2
quit;
Warning, done/quit/stop disabled.  Please use File->Close

and then closing.

....

!.....,&"""F#F#F#
.....RESULT.....6#""#
.....6"
.
!.....D
.....WARN....:6$"""QQdone/quit/stop~disabled.~~Please~use~File->Close6"
.....6"
.
!.....6"
.

Note, however, that this is for 1D input. For 2D input, an error occurs instead, whose origin seems different. I will look at this issue later, if I have time.

By the way, early in this dialog, the GUI introduces to the kernel:

.....6#Q0IBM~INTEL~LINUX6"
.....GET.....6#I(versionG6"
....\I`pClassic~Worksheet~Interface,~Maple~13.00,~IBM~INTEL~LINUX,~May~6~2009~Build~ID~401004G6"

So that for cheating the kernel you should interfere at this level.

This is exactly the most valuable feature of using explicit rules: you get higher control of the symbolic computation path, similarly to what is done by hand. On the other hand, most routines in the system are geared instead towards algebraic computations, becoming frequently useless or even an obstacle for the former purpose (just count the number of questions like how to factor out the 2 in 2*a+2*b).

This is exactly the most valuable feature of using explicit rules: you get higher control of the symbolic computation path, similarly to what is done by hand. On the other hand, most routines in the system are geared instead towards algebraic computations, becoming frequently useless or even an obstacle for the former purpose (just count the number of questions like how to factor out the 2 in 2*a+2*b).

Any interesting example of using Maple CLI under PowerShell?

Any interesting example of using Maple CLI under PowerShell?

@Alec Mihailovs 

Nobody said that A>0. The transformation does not require such information.

@Alec Mihailovs 

Nobody said that A>0. The transformation does not require such information.

I know it well, but assumptions are not the point. A may be negative, complex, or you could write instead a complicated expresion whose domain is unspecified. That information is irrelevant for the transformation. So, you may keep adding invented information for coercing evalc and see whether you reach a useful output, but I do not see it as the most fruitful method.

I know it well, but assumptions are not the point. A may be negative, complex, or you could write instead a complicated expresion whose domain is unspecified. That information is irrelevant for the transformation. So, you may keep adding invented information for coercing evalc and see whether you reach a useful output, but I do not see it as the most fruitful method.

The problem of evalc is that its transformation rules are largely undocumented, less controllable. So, making just a slight modification of the expression, the result may not be so convenient:

r:=1/2 * exp(I*k*theta - 1/2*k^2*sigma^2)* sigma*sqrt(A) + 
1/2 * exp(-I*k*theta - 1/2*k^2*sigma^2)* sigma*sqrt(A):
evalc(%);  
             2      2
            k  sigma                           1/2
  1/2 exp(- ---------) cos(k theta) sigma | A |    (1 + signum(A)) +
                2

                     2      2
                    k  sigma                           1/2
        1/2 I exp(- ---------) cos(k theta) sigma | A |
                        2

        (1 - signum(A))

On the other hand, the explicit rule method, when it works, is controlable:

applyrule(exp2cosh,r);
                                 2      2
                      1/2       k  sigma
               sigma A    exp(- ---------) cos(k theta)
                                    2

Of course, it is a matter of taste.

The problem of evalc is that its transformation rules are largely undocumented, less controllable. So, making just a slight modification of the expression, the result may not be so convenient:

r:=1/2 * exp(I*k*theta - 1/2*k^2*sigma^2)* sigma*sqrt(A) + 
1/2 * exp(-I*k*theta - 1/2*k^2*sigma^2)* sigma*sqrt(A):
evalc(%);  
             2      2
            k  sigma                           1/2
  1/2 exp(- ---------) cos(k theta) sigma | A |    (1 + signum(A)) +
                2

                     2      2
                    k  sigma                           1/2
        1/2 I exp(- ---------) cos(k theta) sigma | A |
                        2

        (1 - signum(A))

On the other hand, the explicit rule method, when it works, is controlable:

applyrule(exp2cosh,r);
                                 2      2
                      1/2       k  sigma
               sigma A    exp(- ---------) cos(k theta)
                                    2

Of course, it is a matter of taste.

Not being an English speaker, I may get it wrong, but if English speakers do not agree, I go to the dictionary and see: primer goes for first in a temporal sequence, primate is for zoology (hence monkeys in Maple trees...) or Christian church persons, and primarian is for school boys. On the other hand, prime (hence Mapleprimes) is for  Mathematics or: first in importance, degree, or rank/excellence, quality, or value. A priori, I would prefer this later denomination.

@Michael 

Sounds like the new edit bug is striking here.

@Michael 

Sounds like the new edit bug is striking here.

A simple way is using versions until Maple 7 and execute quit. In later versions quit, stop and done were disabled in the GUI, I wonder why (?updates,Maple8,compatibility says nothing).