Dear Vladimir, On 10/14/19 4:57 PM, Vladimir V. Kisil wrote:
I want to celebrate the 10th anniversary of this patch
https://www.ginac.de/pipermail/ginac-devel/2009-October/001675.html
by its re-submission. Since it was not objected since the original submission by anyone, it may be the time now to add this basic calculus-textbook rule to GiNaC.
Well, after celebrating this patch, we should discuss it breaking check/exam_paranoia.cpp:217. That particular check has nothing to do with the exp() function, so we could re-write it in terms of Li2() or some other function and be done with it. But François Maltey objected about exp(x)/exp(x) not eval'ing to 1 any more: https://www.ginac.de/pipermail/ginac-devel/2009-October/001680.html And, somehow, that should be addressed, I guess. I propose writing generic functions outside the automatic eval system along these lines https://www.ginac.de/FAQ.html#treetraverse searching for common arguments of exp() which may be combined. Would you like to venture? -richy.