@Carl Love I wrote:
- You can't compare what you've done in 2D Input with anything possible in Maple V because Maple V doesn't have 2D Input.
Actually, I've thought of a valid way to make the code comparison in many or most cases: Any syntactically correct[*1] 2D Input can be converted to 1D input, and indeed Maple does this conversion anyway (without showing you) for its own internal purposes before executing the code in the kernel. If you want to see this equivalent 1D input, highlight the 2D Input => right click for the context menu => 2-D Math => Convert To => 1-D Math Input. (This is the best way to debug syntactically correct 2D Input, IMO.) Then that 1D input can be copy-and-pasted to some other Maple version to make the comparison.
By converting to 1D input, you can discover many cases where identical sequences of keystrokes produce different executable results and hence different output in 2D- and 1D-Input. This case of the "extra dot" is one such; more details are below.
[*1] By syntactically correct I mean that Maple interprets the 2D Input as being something that the kernel can execute. It doesn't mean correct in the sense of doing what the user intended.
@C_R You wrote:
- I overlooked the extra dot. I will delete my reply. There is nothing to investigate.
Please don't delete Replies or other material which has been responded to. Here are 3 reasons why (there are probably many others):
- It makes the thread confusing to read in the future.
- It makes the responder's response seem like a non sequitur.
- It makes the responder feel that their effort was partially wasted, particularly the effort of writing a response that would remain understandable for years to come.
Instead, you can add an addendum saying, for example, that you've been convinced otherwise about an earlier statement.
Regarding the "extra dot", I do think that there is something for Maplesoft to fix, or at least document clearly or have it trigger a warning. I don't think that "investigation" is required because it's a clear-cut case of different syntactically correct interpretations of identical character sequences of input in 2D and 1D.
It has always been the case (or at least back to my 1st Maple version---V r4) that the range operator .., when used infix, could be replaced by three or more dots (with no intervening spaces) with no difference in interpretation. So,
is interpreted the same as (0.2) .. (2). But in 2D Input, it's interpreted as (0.2) .. (0.2), because the 3rd dot is parsed as a decimal point rather than as part of the range operator.