On Thursday 31 May 2007 20:24, Bobby Moretti wrote:
> This is an example of trying to err on the side of being overly correct for
> our output. For example, if you input
>
> sage: sqrt(2)*5
>
> it will get simplified to 5*sqrt(2). But this relies on the behavior of
> maxima's simplification. \sqrt{2} \cdot 5 is much better than \sqrt{2}5,
> which is what could happen if we left the cdot out in all cases.
>
> I think the solution is to use some logic to remove the \cdot in some
> cases, but leave it there in others. For example, juxtaposing two numbers
> with no dot to signify multiplication leads to confusing output, and in
> fact the TeX function that comes with Maxima has this exact bug. One of the
> small projects I want to get done in the week between classes and SD4 is
> redoing the symbolic output to be less redundant, and this fits in with
> that.

On a similar note, there is another issue that would improve the output 
significantly.  I have expressions which are a product of about 5 things and 
they are output with excessive parentheses, for example:
(((1+a)(1+b))(1+c))(1+d)
The parenthesis check in the code just adds parentheses if the left 
subexpression contains a minus or plus.  Of course, it should check if there 
is a minus or plus that isn't already bracketed or something like that.  
Would you like a trac bug for that?

In any case, the latex view functionality is IMO a huge feature of sage that 
I've wanted in so many other systems.  It's an absolutely essential 
alternative to the screenful of symbols which are output from 
Maple/Mathematica and others when stuff gets big (of course, maybe I'm 
missing some features in the big M's).

--
Joel

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to