On Thursday, August 18, 2016 at 5:32:09 AM UTC-7, Bill Page wrote: > > I think that there was no claim that it was unambiguous and therefore > it implies that some ambiguity would be tolerated. But this has > already been argued ad infinitum and apparently that has resulted in > the current stalemate.
It's actually just a lack of expertise or lack of motivation/different priorities with the people with the expertise. GiNaC provides the hooks for special function printing (see http://www.ginac.de/tutorial/#Print-methods-for-functions for an example for an example how "absolute value" manages to print things right), they are just not exposed in PyNaC. This is now https://github.com/pynac/pynac/issues/187 . It would be absolutely wonderful if someone with enough knowledge of PyNaC would be able to solve this issue, because I think it's impossible to do properly solely on the sage side of thing. As far as I can tell, ExpressionNice gets its results by string-based regular expression post-processing. That may be good enough for the "manifold" setting, if they know expressions are going to be sufficiently simple, but it's definitely going to break when used for arbitrary expressions. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
