Herman Sletmoen

Thanks for giving it a go! How bad is this? I can imagine several of these test failures are fixable. What really matters at the end of the day? That...

Is this good to merge, or are there more things to consider?

Faster workaround: ```julia ; cd ~/.julia/dev/ ; git clone -b master --single-branch https://github.com/sefffal/PairPlots.jl/ # clone master only ] dev ./PairPlots.jl/ # dev local repo ```

How about if `SymbolicUtils.simplify()` by default uses the rule ``` using SymbolicUtils r = @rule (~x::SymbolicUtils._isinteger) => Int(~x) ``` Then ```julia r(7.0) # outputs 7 ``` If you think this...

They are currently displayed in this "function form", which does not have an equality sign that makes sense to align with: 

One way to fix it would be to show `equations(expand_connections(sys))` instead of `equations(sys)`. But that would have to be done in ModelingToolkit, since `expand_connections()` is only defined there. And that...

I suppose that would fix it, yes. That might require some some changes in MTK, since it affect more than just the Latex rendering to be consistent throughout MTK.

> Connections don't make sense in the Symbolics world. They really require systems to make sense. Then I also think [this connector equation logic](https://github.com/JuliaSymbolics/Symbolics.jl/blob/ab3ecdc97ce43cf42335a0cbb35d9e05b7f1f2f5/src/equations.jl#L5-L33) should be moved to MTK.

One problem is that the coefficients come out as floats (I want them to be rationals) because of `substitute(..., x => 0)`. A minimal example: ```julia julia> @variables x 1-element...

One (far from perfect) solution is to `rationalize()` float coefficients into rational numbers. This seems to work well for the tests, except for e.g. the first irrational term in the...