On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Golam Mortuza Hossain<gmhoss...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Robert > Bradshaw<rober...@math.washington.edu> wrote: >> I thought the consensus was that the D[n], though more powerful, was >> far less intuitive and so we were going to go with "diff(f(x,y), x)" >> or even "(df/dx)(x,y)" for printing. > > No. If I gather properly, the consensus was to use D[n] :-)
No it wasn't. In case you're having trouble with your email client, I'm forwarding my message from June 16. In response to the message below, several messages later you called for another vote (I don't know why), which had the same conclusion. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> Date: Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 6:34 PM Subject: Re: [sage-devel] Re: typesetting partial derivatives To: sage-devel@googlegroups.com The vote was: Maple style D[...] notation: 2 votes Mathematica style exponent notation: 4 votes So the conclusion is that we will go with the Mathematica style notation. William -- William Stein Associate Professor of Mathematics University of Washington http://wstein.org --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
