@Axel Vogt It is 1/24. But what I computed above is its reciprocal.

Anyway, I believe that such a feature will become a new (and built-in) functionality in the up-coming version (which may be released early next month). 

@Tokoro Sorry, is there any references? 

@WA573 You may set “'connect' = true” in plots:-pointplot.
Alternatively, 

p1 := plots:-listplot(x_values, cont_real, 'color' = "blue", 'legend' = "Continuous - Real"):
p2 := plots:-listplot(x_values, disc_real, 'color' = "green", 'legend' = "Discrete - Real"):
p3 := plots:-listplot(x_values, cont_imag, 'color' = "red", 'legend' = "Continuous - Imag"):
p4 := plots:-listplot(x_values, disc_imag, 'color' = "orange", 'legend' = "Discrete - Imag"):
plots:-display(<plots:-display(p1, p3) | plots:-display(p2, p4)>);

@Nicole Sharp How about

#https://maxima.sourceforge.io/docs/manual/maxima_378.html#index-strim
StringTools:-Subs(StringTools:-Explode(" /*") =~ "", "/* comment */");
 = 
                           "comment"

? 

@Thomas Richard Thanks. I forgot to change the effective `Digits` at that time. (It seems that the precision (and accuracy) of the input never affect the precision to use inside numerical algorithms?)

Although the help page of `convert/rational` does not mention its internal algorithm, the help page of `identify` (which is mentioned in the help page of `convert/rational` in fact) does mention: 

In view of this, it is reasonable to infer that internally, rational approximations are obtained among continued fraction convergents, that is, generated by truncating continued fraction expansions. 

However, I think that a more hard task is to recognize an "simplest" algebraic number that approximates a given (probably floating-point) number well. (For instance, 

evalf[10**3](root(2, 6) + root(3, 5)):
identify(%, 'BasisSizeAlg' = 30);

still fails to recover RootOf(_Z^30 - 18*_Z^25 - 10*_Z^24 + 135*_Z^20 - 7380*_Z^19 + 40*_Z^18 - 540*_Z^15 - 135540*_Z^14 - 56160*_Z^13 - 80*_Z^12 + 1215*_Z^10 - 336420*_Z^9 + 538380*_Z^8 - 43920*_Z^7 + 80*_Z^6 - 1458*_Z^5 - 102060*_Z^4 - 98280*_Z^3 - 20520*_Z^2 - 1440*_Z + 697, index = 2).)

@Carl Love Thanks. Strangely, Maple's R&D engineers seem to have overlooked this (probably because the Maple IDE project (not the code edit region component) has already been aborted).

@Carl Love Yes, I can change it myself. But I believe it would be better to automatically set its default value based on different computer screen sizes when installing Maple, so that by default, if I want to send a document including a full-line lprint to others with wider screen computers, I don’t have to add a statement like interface('screenwidth' = 9999): in the startup code or request them (mostly ordinary users) to change their own initial settings. 

@Carl Love Many thanks. Maybe the default screen-width can be changed to a larger number in modern Maple.

@Carl Love Thanks. But in both "the most recent release" and "some legacy version", the interface(screenwidth) is set to the default value 79. Why is the output in the latter still wider than that in the former? 

@acer Thanks for your commentaries. This scheme looks feasible, but I found that it may make the code less intuitive (if I have understood correctly?). Perhaps there will be a better way to achieve this in the future so that the size and complexity of the code can be minimized.

@Carl Love Thanks for your explanation. Anyway, I hope that Maple can maintain a unified parameter structure.

@nm Thanks. I have fixed it.

@acer Maybe my previous problem Why does `applyrule` fail to apply rules? - MaplePrimes is relevant to this. @Christian Wolinski has provided a workaround using pattern-based applyrule, but I'd like to know how to translate the original (and in my view, easy-to-read) 

applyrule([s(x::anything)(y::anything)(z::anything) = x(z)(y(z)), 
                        k(x::anything)(y::anything) = x, 
                                     i(x::anything) = x], 
          [s(k(s(i)))(s(k(k))(i))(x)(y)), 
           s(s(s)(s))(s)(s(s))(k), 
           s(s(s))(s)(s)(s)(s(s)(k(k)))]); # This does not work. 

into the language of evalindets/subsindets.
Here, s(x::anything)(y::anything)(z::anything) can be translated to typefunc(anything,typefunc(anything,specfunc(anything,s))), and k(x::anything)(y::anything) can be translated to typefunc(anything, k(anything)); nevertheless, according to the documentation of evalindets/subsindets, the second parameter cannot be a list, so I can only input one rule at a time (while there exist three rules). How to make them accept three rules as the arguments at a time (just like what applyrule (as well as define) does)?