@Ronan I terminated the statement (that contained the procedure call) with a full colon.

That suppresses printing of the return value, as output.

The flavors of visual side-effect (here, tabulated display) is however unaffected by the statement terminator of the proc call. 

For fun, a variety of visual side-effects made during a procedure call.

vis_sd_eff.mw

The print and Tabulate can both display plots and 2D Math, while lprint, printf, userinfo, and WARNING show plaintext.

@Ronan Since your procedure is returning those same values in either case, you could also reducing duplication in the code, by doing,

 ...
 if prnt then
   DocumentTools:-Tabulate([columns,[qqf,q13,q24]],'width'=55);
 end if;
 return qqf,q13,q24;
 end proc:

(I didn't realize, before, that you wanted prnt to toggle-on the Tabulation.)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean about "...a double printing of qqf,q13,q24". I don't see what you think might induce that.

If you add another Reply to that previous thread then it'll get bumped to the top of the "recent" chain, which makes it more noticable.

Deleting the previous Question, to which Edgardo had responded, seems counter-productive (and not great etiquette, IMO).

@Carl Love Your claim is no longer true about the (now) default adaptive=geometric algorithm of the plot command.

And that is the case in both Maple 2023 and Maple 2024.

We can see that this is true because in the OP's Question the attached first plot looks good.

In fact we can run this example (in Maple 2024 with the gridline-coloring option, or in Maple 2023 without it), and demonstrate that the plot command's default/geometric adaptive scheme does in fact sample more at the lower end here, purely because the mode=log option was supplied for the axis.

Download plot_geom_log_mode.mw

Yes, plots:-semilogplot is a perfectly fine workaround. But your claim is no longer true that axis= [mode= log] doesn't trigger the regular plot command to sample up front with logarithmic spacing. It does, here.

What happened in Maple2023 for the OP's example is that passing the additional gridline-coloring option broke the code that figured this out.

Your claim is true of the older non-default adaptive=true scheme.

@Ronan You may to have missed this key Reply by Joe Riel in that thread you cited.

Using piecewise is a poor choice here, in terms of performance, given that add's special-evaluation rules let you easily use `if` or ifelse instead.

@Scot Gould  list_making_expression[]  acts like  op(list_making_expression) for something that evaluates to a list, and produces the expression sequence of entries.

Download SG_notes.mw

comment: In my Maple 2024.0 the following works for me in 2D Input,

  (i->M[.., i])~([$1..5])[]

though the form with [$5] works for me only in 1D input.

Btw, I'm not sure how you tested but if the square brackets are omitted then don't you get just the first column?

I only mentioned these because elementwise was specifically mentioned. I'd rather not introduce the extra overhead of calling even this simple user-defined anonymous operator N times.

@Scot Gould The following is done as an elementwise operation,

   (i->M[..,i])~([$5])[];

And you can remove the trailing [] if you'd accept a list of the column Vectors.

The following doesn't have a super short form (as an application of zip or `?[]` done elementwise) since M and the list of indexing specs are of different lengths.

   map[2](`?[]`,M,[[..,i]$i=1..5])[];

There are other less terse (and mostly less efficient) ways, some of which I might consider slick.

I don't know that you've going to get much shorter than what I showed in my Answer.

[edit] I had decided not to mention elementwise Vector construction over the listlist conversion of the transpose of the Matrix, since it's overly verbose as well as inefficient.

@sija I cannot tell from your code what it is that you are trying to do. I think that you should explain the goal, clearly and explicitly, in words.

@Ronan IIRC the lhs of a keyword call should have uneval quotes at least, and the rhs should be an uneval quoted global name, in order to adequately protect against values assigned to those names.

Sometimes I give both lhs and rhs the :- colon-dash to make them a global name.

It's not necessary to add the uneval quotes if the name is one of the stock protected names. The name symbol is one of those, so I didn't bother, since nobody should be unprotecting and assigning to that global name.

I was examining what maplemint reported, ealier. (I don't have all the time in the world for this, sorry...) And sometimes I miss things.

But a strong test is one which tests 1) that it works normally, and 2) that it doesn't break if either the keyword name or option value name were assigned. Consider the following attachment, which assigns to align at the top-level, and then runs the examples.

You can also add a $ to the end of a procedure's parameter specification. That will cause an error to get thrown if there are any extra/unexpected arguments passed when it is called. That can help in tracking down mistakes in the option specifications. (You could remove the $ when finished. Your taste.)

2024-03-09_Example_parm_names_changed_accc.mw

You can experiment with what breaks what. You could also test the other names in play. If you plan on using this procedure a great deal, or giving it to others, or using it for a long time, then such sanity checks are one kind of useful "unit test".

Single back-quotes are used to turn language keywords into names. That's a very different meaning of the word "keyword" than we're using here. Examples include `if`, `global`, `union`, etc.

For procedure parameters the word "keyword" refers to one particular class of optional parameter. For those I've used single forward-quotes (a.k.a. uneval quotes). The purpose is to avoid your procedure use breaking if the names had been assigned some values at the higher level. You won't really notice the effect unless you do actually make such assignments and you lacked the quotes -- examples can break.

It's unfortunate that the word "keyword" has these two different meaning (and that each often deals with a different kind of quotes). Ambiguity is a problem.

@Kitonum That works in your Maple 2018, and up to at least Maple 2022.2.

But it does not work in Maple 2024.0 or Maple 2023.2.1.

The OP's attachment was saved by him using Maple 2024.0.

@Ronan You haven't given any explanation as to why a clash (such as `print`) would cause a problem. What problem would it cause, that you don't know how to overcome?

Why precisely do you need to avoid any "clash"? Can you give an example of such a "clash", for which you believe that you could not utilize your procedure successfully?

The worksheet you've shown doesn't make your purported problem clear, IMO. You used Line as the procedure's parameter name, yet then passed it line=... as an argument, so naturally that doesn't do much. What were you trying to illustrate (apart from your using the wrong name when calling it...)?

Why do you think that you cannot/oughtn't use the lowercase name line for your keyword parameter name in the definition of your procedure?

Please be very explicit, because I really don't understand what you're trying to convey. Thanks.

ps. There are lots of Library procedures that use some other Library procedure name as one of its keyword parameters. An example of such a keyword is value, which is also the name of a top-level command. That doesn't prevent such procedures from being used properly.

I forgot to mention, your (mixed Vector/list) elementwise arithmetic can also be done using infix notation, which I think looks tidier here than the prefix form. Eg,

Download Perpendicular_3D_lines_acc.mw