For instance, here is a worksheet where I have replaced  with  in advance: 
 

But without re-evaluations, how do I know the second input and the fourth input have been stealthily substituted?

In a Mma notebook, this can be displayed by shadowing the input label: 

But in order to detect changes, which method should be used in Maple?
(Note that I do not mean that no changes are allowed. So I don't think setting the “editable” property is a workaround.)

`lprint` is officially interpreted as “linear printing of expressions”, but in the most recent release, its output looks just like "left printing" (under the default zoom 100%), 

while in some legacy version, `lprint` printed expressions not only on the left but also on the right. 

How to render `lprint` print its arguments not only on the left half?
Although I believe that similar questions must have been asked before, I cannot find such a question. 

Code: 

lprint(_bigPi):
showstat(ellipsoid)

It seems that applyrule cannot handle variable numbers of arguments, and I cannot use something like 

applyrule(f(u::anything, v::seq(anything)) = g(v, u), [f(x, y, z), f(x, y, z, t)]);
 = 
                  [f(x, y, z), f(x, y, z, t)]

Strangely, Maple does support the identical patterns in parameter declarations: 

eval([f(x, y, z), f(x, y, z, t)], f = ((u::anything, v::seq(anything)) → g(v, u)));
 = 
                  [g(y, z, x), g(y, z, t, x)]

So the two designs do not appear coherent. Should this be regarded as a "bug" in a sense? 

Of course there is no need to use the  modifier; here it is enough to use 

evalindets([f(x,y,z),f(x,y,z,t)],'specfunc'(anything,f),w->g(op(2..(),w),op(1,w))):

use f = MakeFunction('g(args[2 .. ], args[1])') in [f(x, y, z), f(x, y, z, t)] end:

use f = unapply('g(_rest, _w)', [_w::anything]) in [f(x, y, z), f(x, y, z, t)] end:

But the problem is, why is there such inconsistency described above? 

Although I still prefer applyrule (as evalindets/subsindets is not as intuitive as applyrule),  I have heard that it is regarded as being more or less antiquated in modern Maple. I notice that a lot of (yet not all) examples given in the help pages of evalindets/subsindets can be reformulated by applyrule, but does any use of applyrule also correspond to using evalindets/subsindets? And if so, how to equivalently rewrite those transformation rules (especially complicated ones like nested function applications) in the syntax of evalindets/subsindets?

For example, I would like to draw the following figure in Maple.

(The above figure is taken from MatLab's documentation.) 
Here are these four graphics objects: 

use plottools, ColorTools in
	l0, l1 := line~([<1 | 0>, <1 | 1>], [<6 | 5>, <6 | 6>], 'color' =~ Color~(["#0072BD", "#D95319"]))[];
	r0, r1 := rectangle~([[2, 0], [4, 0]], [[3, 6], [5, 6]], 'color' =~ Color~([[.6, .7, .9], [.95, .7, .6]]))[]
end:

However, either 

`plots/display`([r1, l1, l0, r0], 'axes' = "boxed", 'size' = ["default", "golden"], 'style' = "patchnogrid")

or 

`plots/display`([r0, l0, l1, r1], 'axes' = "boxed", 'size' = ["default", "golden"], 'style' = "patchnogrid")

outputs the same graphical image where the lines are always rendered on top of each rectangles instead of the other way around.

 

So how to superimpose the right rectangle over the two lines? To put it differently, how to handle the graphics hierarchy? I have read some similar questions like Order in plots:-display - MaplePrimes, yet I cannot find any workarounds. 

Note that in my opinion, the result should comprise two unbroken line segments rather than four subordinate line segments!