On 9/17/07, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 9/17/07, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > It sounds from what you write though, that it is best to just stick > > > with the "upload" / "download" terminology, since it is *very* clear > > > in which direction the file goes in each case. Upload means "goes > > > to the server (SAGE notebook), and download means it goes to > > > your local hard drive. > > > > I really like the "open" and "save" terminology best--it even brings > > up "open" and "save" dialogs. Download/upload is much less intuitive > > (I think it should almost be transparent that there is even a "server"). > > OK, cool. Could some other people vote?
Agreed: "open" and "save" are good, but then don't you have 2 different save options? (Save to sevrver and save to local HD?) > > > > > > A better solution would, as you suggest, to define a function like > > > > range -- but not called range -- that includes both endpoints. > > > > One possibly nasty possibility would be to allow Magma-like > > > > notation: > > > > sage: [1..4] > > > > [1, 2, 3, 4] > > > > I can't think of any situation where .. (not in a string) is > > > valid Python, > > > > so the above might be a reasonable option. > > > > > > > > > > This sounds like a great idea! I like having the lower bound > > > explicit. > > > > > > I wonder if there would be some consistent way to make 1..4 stand for > > > an iterator, and [1..4] a list. Hmm: then since we'd want [2,3,5..9] > > > to be a list, we'd want 2,3,5..9 to be an iterator, whereas (2,3,5..9) > > > would presumably be a tuple, which seems problematic. Is there a > > > clean way to handle this? > > > > I like this a lot too, and think it would be worth modifying the > > preparser to do. The range starting at 0 is natural for me, but it > > seems to trip a lot of (non-programmers) up. > > Robert, Since you do so much work on Cython, maybe you could think > about the formal specification of the Python language and see whether > .. > not appearing in a string is ever valid Python. I.e., could we add > [expr1 .. expr2] > to the language without running into problems? > > Maybe > (expr1 .. expr2) > should return a generator and > [expr1 .. expr2] > should return a list. > > And, if anybody out there thinks adding the above to the preparser > would make you positively cringe in disgust, please speak up! > (It doesn't mean we won't add it anyways...) > > -- William > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
