On Wed, 13 Dec 2006, Iftikhar Burhanuddin wrote: > > > Does anyone else think that 173.binary() should be legal? Currently > > the > > preparser mangles it into a syntax error, it thinks the dot is a > > decimal point. One currently needs to do (173).binary() instead. > > IMO it should be legal. And moreover tab completion should be made to > work. Will be tricky!
On the same lines, I would be happy is tab completion worked in the following scenario. sage: SupersingularModule(11). Should this be legal? And should be implemented without actually creating the oject with *just* syntatic checking? What say folks? Ifti. ps: I'm fixated on tab completions because a lot of my work is done via the command line and I'm annoyed when things don't work the way *I* would like them to work! :) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
