On Jul 18, 2009, at 7:49 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
> > Burcin Erocal wrote: > >> I attached a patch to the trac ticket that contains an initial >> attempt >> at the MMA notation: >> >> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6344 >> > > FYI, a few days ago Burcin uploaded a new patch on 6344 and asked for > review. Here are the examples: > > OLD: > > > sage: var('x,y') > sage: f = function('f') > sage: f(x).derivative(x) > D[0](f)(x) > sage: f(x,x).derivative(x,2) > D[0, 0](f)(x, x) + 2*D[0, 1](f)(x, x) + D[1, 1](f)(x, x) > > > NEW: > > sage: f(x).derivative(x) > D[1](f)(x) > sage: f(x,x).derivative(x,2) > D[2, 0](f)(x, x) + 2*D[1, 1](f)(x, x) + D[0, 2](f)(x, x) > > NEW LATEX: > > sage: latex(f(x).derivative(x)) > f'\left(x\right) > sage: latex(f(x,x).derivative(x,2)) > f^{(2,0)}\left(x, x\right) + 2 \, f^{(1,1)}\left(x, x\right) + > f^{(0,2)}\left(x, x\right) Is standard partial derivative notation going to be used ever? Say in latex(f(x,y).derivative(x,2))? Also, is it possible to have some intelligence on when to use \left and \right? Certainly for (x) they aren't really needed. > > > If you have an issue with the above printing, please speak now! If > you > like this, it'd be great if you'd chime in as well. > > Burcin indicates that this is a stepping stone, not necessarily a > final > implementation. However, Burcin points out that we ought to settle > on a > suitable output soon and move on from this issue. > > Thanks, > > Jason > --- Tim Lahey PhD Candidate, Systems Design Engineering University of Waterloo http://www.linkedin.com/in/timlahey --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
