Dear Richard,
On Wed, 31 Dec 2014 19:41:11 +0100, "Richard B. Kreckel" <kreckel@in.terlu.de> said:
RK> Your proposal is to have two ways to implement a function's RK> derivative: 1) by registering the existing derivative_func (pure RK> formal derivative) 2) or your new impl_derivative_func (smart RK> derivative, has to care about chain rule) RK> I wonder if there is a way to make this more uniform. What do RK> you think? Of course, the chain rule may be included as a particular case in the more general method. This will require a user slightly revise their custom function definitions for the new version of GiNaC. Do you consider this to be a reasonable price for a more straightforward code? RK> derivatives, your patch has three (very minor) problems which RK> should be fixed before committing: You are right. I may do this within a couple of weeks, I hope. Best wishes, Vladimir -- Vladimir V. Kisil email: kisilv@maths.leeds.ac.uk www: http://www.maths.leeds.ac.uk/~kisilv/ Book: Geometry of Mobius Transformations http://www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/p835