> More on topic, I strongly agree with the sentiments that we are trying > to create a viable alternative, not a clone. Sage does lack a concise > syntax for matrices which are a pretty basic type, and I think this > deficiency is probably worth addressing with the preparser. The [a, b; > c, d] syntax is a natural one (pari as well as Matlab uses it), though > I'm open to suggestions. FWIW, Maple and Mathematical require nested > lists just as Sage does now. As for the basering, we have > > [a, b; c, d].change_ring(QQ) > > but change_ring might be a bit obscure. Maybe "over" could be provided as > well.
Wow, that could be quite useful. -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
