> Should [a, b; c, d] be a valid syntax for matrix construction in Sage?
[ X ] Yes, I love this syntax! It would be make life better for me and my students. [ ] I wouldn't oppose, but may require some convincing. [ ] No, that's a horrible idea. > Why? Short, intuitive, clear, coincides with gp notation. > Should the default basering be more linear-algebra friendly? E.g. R -> > Frac(R), RR -> RDF. [ ] Yes, that would take away a lot of pain/be what I'd have to specify manually anyway. [ X ] Could be handy, but the drawbacks are significant. [ ] No, matrices over QQ are for sissies, real mathematicians work over ZZ unless otherwise specified. > Why? I think strongly that there should be no difference between [a,b; c,d] and matrix([[a,b],[c,d]]). Otherwise the difference will have to be explained over and over again. I don't personally know enough to say anything about RR -> RDF for matrices, so no opinion on that. ZZ -> QQ for matrix will likely break some people's existing code. It also means extra pain for me personally. What does R -> Frac(R) mean when it is hard to decide whether R is a domain? -- 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
