Craig Citro wrote: >>> The best I've come up with at this point is, given graphs >>> A,B,C,D,E, the >>> union is: >>> >>> A.union(B).union(C).union(D).union(E) >> I actually think that this looks very clear, despite the lack of >> infix operators. >> > > I agree -- especially since it looks like a literal translation of > the same statement as written mathematics. However, I could see a > strong argument that it could get too long -- it wouldn't take much > work to change union to support something like this: > > A.union( [ B, C, D, E ] )
I originally was going to do things this way, but then decided the way I presented. However, you're right---it's a trivial change to allow both possibilities. I'll definitely add that. Thanks, -Jason --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
