This Stack Overflow FAQ states "Like Wikipedia, this site is collaboratively edited". Do you mean this feature for the new MaplePrimes?

It has been always my opinion that the best of the posted material to MaplePrimes deserves to be edited and put together by expert hands.

But who will take charge of this work? It does not seem likely that Maplesoft will devote some employees for this job. Rather, Will's description  points towards an automated system. 

And what about the objections issued by some authors to the edition of their material?

May be good or bad, depending on the case. A post may contain e.g. an answer to a previous question, a new question prompted by the answer itself say, and some statements that are neither question nor answer. There are many such posts in MaplePrimes and I do not see how they would fit in such a scheme.

Yes, I see it. So, it seems like the typeseting code operates before parsing.

Yes, I see it. So, it seems like the typeseting code operates before parsing.

Your expression is not equal to 2/(a-1), as a plot shows:

((2+sqrt(a))/(a+2*sqrt(a)+1)-(sqrt(a)-2)/(a-1))(1+1/sqrt(a));
plot([%,2/(a-1)],a=1..10,0..10);

In Standard, with both 1D and 2D input, I get the same output:

restart:
g:= proc(x) seq(x()*x(), i=1..10) end proc:
g(rand(1..10));
                    70, 12, 24, 5, 40, 20, 8, 24, 90, 16

In Standard, with both 1D and 2D input, I get the same output:

restart:
g:= proc(x) seq(x()*x(), i=1..10) end proc:
g(rand(1..10));
                    70, 12, 24, 5, 40, 20, 8, 24, 90, 16

Does Maplesoft handle internally a unified policy of unit testing?

Does Maplesoft handle internally a unified policy of unit testing?

Actually, I am unhappy to be forced to use an overrestricted assumption like positive so as to get a simple result. It should work with real, and without a surgery.