I am not familiar with qHull, but it sounds from your first post that something similar to this call, for an editor could work.

I am not familiar with qHull, but it sounds from your first post that something similar to this call, for an editor could work.

As many packages and features remain unfinished along many versions, it could be a case of frequent change in the list of priorities.

As many packages and features remain unfinished along many versions, it could be a case of frequent change in the list of priorities.

I say that it is a mystery, not undocumented. Its same help page stresses this mystery by saying that type applied is identical to the built-in type function. However, even with the same functionality it uses more resources. So, it does not seem to be a good alternative. I wonder whether any other routine does call it (I do not know how to trace that).

And it is a mystery much like other undocumented routines that reproduce quite closely the functionality of built-in routines.

I say that it is a mystery, not undocumented. Its same help page stresses this mystery by saying that type applied is identical to the built-in type function. However, even with the same functionality it uses more resources. So, it does not seem to be a good alternative. I wonder whether any other routine does call it (I do not know how to trace that).

And it is a mystery much like other undocumented routines that reproduce quite closely the functionality of built-in routines.

May be that the background code of the first statement is not identical to the background code of the second one. I.e. what is parsed may be different.

May be that the background code of the first statement is not identical to the background code of the second one. I.e. what is parsed may be different.

The type applied does not exist in Maple 9.03 and works in Maple 9.52. Another mistery among so many undocumented routines.

The type applied does not exist in Maple 9.03 and works in Maple 9.52. Another mistery among so many undocumented routines.

No, you have made different changes. Namely, you are using now, within the procedure inertia, objects like l[y][i]^2 instead of (`#msub(mi("l"),mi("y"))`[i])^2 .

The former is the square of the i element of an indexed name, the y element of l, which has no assigned value. What is assigned to a list is the symbol `#msub(mi("l"),mi("y"))`.

The problem is that these two different objects look the same in 2D input...

No, you have made different changes. Namely, you are using now, within the procedure inertia, objects like l[y][i]^2 instead of (`#msub(mi("l"),mi("y"))`[i])^2 .

The former is the square of the i element of an indexed name, the y element of l, which has no assigned value. What is assigned to a list is the symbol `#msub(mi("l"),mi("y"))`.

The problem is that these two different objects look the same in 2D input...

Maple 13.01 Classic has not produced an output for it after about 50min.

Maple 13.01 Classic has not produced an output for it after about 50min.

Fourier series. I think that it would be of interest to Engineers and Scientists alike.