Hi,
It seems, recent switch to new symbolics has caused several
typesetting regressions in sage-4.0 (compared 3.4.*).
Here are the list of regressions which I have encountered so far.
(1) Typesetting of sec(x), csc(x), cot(x) are broken. It puts an
extra "\mbox" around them unlike for sin, cos, tan.
(2) Typesetting for "integral" no longer works
(3) symbolic "diff" now returns a rather incomprehensible output
-------
f(x) = function('f',x)
diff(f(x),x)
D[0](f)(x)
-------
What does that '0' really means? Typeset version also looks similar.
IMHO, the typeset version of any expression of Sage should look
more like those found in text-books, journals.
(4) Spurious latex code(?):
When I keep "Typeset" checkbox checked and I click on the
output then I get some spurious latex code "\newcommand{\Bold}[1]{\mathbf{#1}}"
for every output. This is not present in 3.4
-----
var('mu')
mu
\newcommand{\Bold}[1]{\mathbf{#1}}\mu
-----
(5) Same typesetting for two different variables:
------
var('xi, xi_')
latex(xi)
\xi
latex(xi_)
\xi
------
I think this bug is present even in 3.4!
Cheers,
Golam
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
