On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 6:52 AM, Golam Mortuza Hossain <gmhoss...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Burcin, > > On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 8:47 AM, Burcin Erocal <bur...@erocal.org> wrote: >> Some time next week, I will put a clean version of the switchover >> patch, along with a new pynac package and some fixes to the sage >> library so others can reproduce the results above. > > Great! eager to test them. > >> After looking through the errors caused by the switch, I have a few >> questions: >> - Syntax for derivative and integrate functions: >> >> Current symbolics allows this: >> >> sage: (x^2).integrate() >> x^3/3 >> >> I propose to make the integration variable explicit, by deprecating >> this use, and encouraging the use of this: >> >> sage: (x^2).integrate(x) >> x^3/3 >> >> Note that the MMA syntax for Integrate also asks for the variable >> explicitly. >> >> Same goes for .derivative(), current symbolics works without specifying >> a variable. While this usage might be ok in a univariate polynomial >> ring, where the variable is known already, I think it's better to ask >> the user to explicitly state the variable. > > > +1. I strongly agree with you. IMHO, one should be > strict with the syntax for symbolics. From my personal experience, > I have been bitten by the "convenience factor" several times. > I got completely wrong answers when there were typing mistakes. > Sage instead of raising errors gave legitimate answers by > interpreting typing mistakes as the "convenient" syntax. > >
+1 -- I'm also fine with having to explicitly specify the x. -- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
