On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Carl Witty <carl.wi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 8:55 PM, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Just out of curiosity, do you think we should also get rid of this? >> >> sage: R.<x> = ZZ[] >> sage: x(x+1) >> x + 1 > > Ouch, that's a tougher question, since I actually use that construct :)
:-) One possibility would be that if f is a polynomial over a ring R, then f(a) is defined when a is canonically convertible to R, but raises an error otherwise. Then x(x+1) would give an error, but x(5) would give 5. > But since I don't want to be a total hypocrite, I'm going to say yes, > we should get rid of it. (With a deprecation message -- eventually to > be replaced by an error message -- that gives the recommended > replacement.) > > So, should I prepare patches that deprecate implicit calling of > symbolics and of polynomials? (Would they be likely to be accepted?) Definitely for symbolics. I'm less clear about the situation for polynomials. Regarding symbolics, I think we should definitely do this before the Pynac switchover -- i.e., the sooner the better. That will make the pynac switchover smoother. William --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
