Timeline for Package functions and symbolic calculations
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 6, 2019 at 8:29 | history | edited | Kuba | edited tags | |
| May 5, 2019 at 13:29 | history | edited | Kuba | CC BY-SA 4.0 | edited title |
| May 3, 2017 at 20:48 | history | edited | Kuba | CC BY-SA 3.0 | deleted 19 characters in body; edited tags; edited title |
| Dec 22, 2016 at 23:30 | history | reopened | Mr.Wizard | ||
| Dec 22, 2016 at 22:29 | comment | added | Simon Rochester | @Mr.Wizard Yup, that's ok. | |
| Dec 22, 2016 at 22:23 | comment | added | Mr.Wizard | @Simon I see that now. Perhaps a close the other way really would be better unless that older one is rewritten. Since you are the only one who answered that one I guess you are the one who might feel slighted by it being closed. If you do not mind it seems like reversing the direction of the closure would be the simpler (less work) solution. OK? | |
| Dec 22, 2016 at 18:20 | comment | added | Simon Rochester | @Mr.Wizard Sure, whichever approach is fine with me. One thing to note with the older question is that the code provided in the OP doesn't actually reproduce the problem -- I needed to guess that there was a Private` context being used, as discussed in the comments. | |
| Dec 22, 2016 at 17:38 | comment | added | Mr.Wizard | @Kuba I will wait 24 hours in case anyone has an objection or wishes to reopen this question as a Merge is impossible to reverse without SE developer intervention. (please remind me if I forget) | |
| Dec 22, 2016 at 17:38 | history | closed | Simon Rochester corey979 Feyre Mr.Wizard | Duplicate of Differentiation inside package [duplicate] | |
| Dec 22, 2016 at 17:37 | comment | added | Kuba | @Mr.Wizard I'm fine with that, feel free to merge :) | |
| Dec 22, 2016 at 17:13 | comment | added | Mr.Wizard | @Kuba I am inclined to agree, but I never like closing older questions as duplicates of newer ones. That doesn't mean I won't do or allow it, it's just how I feel about it. One alternative that comes to mind is to merge these questions which would move your more general answer to the older question; this would "cost" you an Accept but it would juxtapose your method and caveats with the seemingly simpler approach shown in Simon's answer. | |
| Dec 22, 2016 at 10:45 | comment | added | Kuba | @SimonRochester while linked topic is older I'd make it a duplicate of this one. It is because the answer here is more general. Sorry but your solution requires to clear the kernel, before loading a package, to avoid shadowing problems with all exported dummy symbols (here x). Not to mention that if two packages export x the shadowing will be unavoidable. | |
| Dec 22, 2016 at 3:46 | review | Close votes | |||
| Dec 22, 2016 at 17:31 | |||||
| May 10, 2016 at 10:39 | history | edited | Kuba | CC BY-SA 3.0 | added 8 characters in body; edited tags |
| May 10, 2016 at 10:39 | vote | accept | Motosega | ||
| May 10, 2016 at 10:28 | answer | added | Kuba | timeline score: 11 | |
| May 10, 2016 at 10:13 | comment | added | J. M.'s missing motivation | Declare Global`x1 in between BeginPackage[] and Begin[], and try again. | |
| May 10, 2016 at 10:10 | history | asked | Motosega | CC BY-SA 3.0 |