On Jan 18, 2008 9:36 AM, Nick Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 18-Jan-08, at 8:59 AM, Martin Albrecht wrote: > > > > > I just came across: > > > > http://docs.python.org/ref/customization.html > > > > where it reads: > > > > """ > > Called by the repr() built-in function and by string conversions > > (reverse > > quotes) to compute the ``official'' string representation of an > > object. If at > > all possible, this should look like a valid Python expression that > > could be > > used to recreate an object with the same value (given an appropriate > > environment). ______If this is not possible, a string of the form > > "<...some > > useful description...>" should be returned____. > > """ > > > > Thoughts about: > > > > sage: sage: P.<x,y,z> = PolynomialRing(QQ) > > sage: P > > <Multivariate Polynomial Ring in x, y, z over Rational Field> > > I have thought about this (and come to no conclusion) but be aware > that it would be: > > <Multivariate Polynomial Ring in x, y, z over <Rational Field>> > > and it could be possibly worse, with much deeper nesting. > > Such a convention is present in Lisp (the #<> form) and Smalltalk, so > over system designers also thought it was important. But there's a > lot of documentation written without it, and it looks rather > unnatural to a Maple/Magma/Mathematica user.
Just to add to this. Python is a good choice for Sage because we don't want to write a language from scratch (like _every_ single other serious computer algebra system did). But I emphatically don't think that this means Sage has to follow every single Python rule or convention. -- 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://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
