> I vote against it! > > (a) because I usually vote against preparser changes :-) > (b) it means SAGE is slowly getting its own language and > (c) it breaks conventions, i.e. it adds confusion IMHO. > (d) It might be because I used to be CS major but I think it is okay just > educate users about the -- wildly used -- Python (and C and Java) convention. > (e) It is not a math paper you are writing in SAGE but they are writing code > in a programming language and you are using a library with a lot of math > capabilities.
Exactly. I am not a SAGE developer (yet), but I vote against it as well. As to a), I am actually against preparser completely. Ondrej --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
