Dear Herve_This_vo_Kientza, 

just an idea....

sometimes entering 2-D-Math expressions goes wrong and the code does strange things. It helps, to convert 2D-Math-Input to 1D. ( right click ) Then you see the plain code. Is there something hidden ?

best regards

@acer 

You are right, that would be easier but the next process needs it's input exactly in this form.  ( due to historical reasons )
Making copies and pre-process them might be a way but could cause confusion - It is much easier to accept waiting for the parser.

Thank you !

Regards,

Klaus

@acer 

Dear acer, 

thank you very much -  I was not aware that ist not the same. 

With both solutions I can now acess my data and hopefully do my analysis.

the loop-method seems to be faster - some of my files are really huge -  I hope that I can do some data reduction inside that loop. 

Both methods are very useful for me !

Thank you and best regards, 

Klaus

@tomleslie 

Thank you very much - that works very well !

Everytime I ask a question, I learn more than expected !

Best regards,

Klaus

@Anthrazit 

Dear Anthrazit, 

I displayed them both in my screen - no difference. It's a HP notebook, not even very new. I have no idea..

Best regards, 

Klaus

Dear Anthrazit, 

sometimes I have similar problems with surfaces programmed by an american colleague - there is something wrong with resolution, font or whatever. 

Can you provide a word- and a maple-file showing the problem ?

Best regards, 

Klaus

Hello Anthrazit, 

yes, that is true. You can switch it on but it does nothing. 

And there is another speciality : you cannot change the position of files within the workbook. 

This feature Is known, Mr. Richard is confident that this will be solved in the next update.

Best regards, 

Klaus

Dear dharr,

yes, you understood me perfectly.
That looks very much like the solution. I will try it as soon as I am back to my computer..

Thank you very much!

Best regards,

Klaus

Dear Forum , 

exuse me for picking up this quite old and solved question.
I had the same question and was a bit astonished to see such a complex solution. 

I set up a litte file and made one code region invisible. When I save it and open it as ascii-file in the editor I can search for "invisible" . 

This shows :
</Group></Presentation-Block><Presentation-Block><CodeEditor-ExecGroup view="presentation" hide-input="false" inline-output="false" labelreference="L9" drawlabel="true" applyint="true" applyrational="true" display="code"><EC-CodeEditor id="CodeEditRegion1" expanded="true" visible="false" pixel-width="500" pixel-height="200" code-language="text/maple" autofit="true" wrapping="true" show-border="true" code-line-numbers="true">Juhu :=2;</EC-CodeEditor>
<Output><Text-field style="2D Output" layout="Maple Output"><Equation executable="false" style="2D Output" 

When I change "false" to "true", my CodeEditRegion is back. 

Is this a simpler way or is there a trap I don't see ?

Best regards, 

Klaus

Download versteckt.mw

@Joe Riel 

yes, that is true. - see my last post. The function was only a (not well chosen) example.

Best regards,

Klaus

Dear all,

thank you for the discussion, that was very enlightening.
I was a little hasty since I only looked at the "if()" not working at all. 
but  "plot(funktion, r1..r2)" does what I want.

1/x, where is a length in m, will of cause not fit into a plot where another part of the result is a length. So I have to  "fill up" my units and then I get a proper result and a proper evaluation of my if-statment.

(My real code is quite entangled, I did not want to show the whole mess...)
There are many nested functions, this method still works fine.

restart;
with(Units[Simple]);

funktion := x -> if 2*Unit('m') < x then Unit('m'^2)/x; else 2*Unit('m'); end if;
r1 := 1.0*Unit('m');
r2 := 6*Unit('m');

plot(funktion, r1 .. r2);

best regards,

Klaus

Thank you very much for that quick answers !
Funny thing that newbies always find the potholes :-)

I will change my code and try that.

Best regards and a nice weekend to you all !

Klaus