Hi Emmanuel, On 2018-03-15, Emmanuel Charpentier <emanuel.charpent...@gmail.com> wrote: > One has also to consider the case (important in Sage) of the > indeterminate(s) of a polynomial. Do we risk introducing an ambiguity if > allowing automatic variable declaration ?
Of course. If you create a polynomial ring (explicitly or implicitly) with variable t, but do not inject t into the global name space, and later refer to t (say, by copy-and-pasting some output), then with automatic variable creation you would unintentionally create t as a symbolic variable, and would be rather surprised, since you expected it to behave like a polynomial indeterminate. So, better raise a NameError (clearly showing that the polynomial indeterminate t needs to be injected into the global name space) than implicitly define t as something that it isn't supposed to be (namely: a symbolic variable). > In any case, *if* this feature is deemed useful, then +1 for including it > in the Sage interpreter itself, and not as an appendix of one of its > ibnterfaces. I'd prefer to totally remove that feature. But maybe that's just me: I don't like people to have guns. But perhaps others believe that it is totally fine to encourage people to shoot themselves into the foot. Cheers, Simon -- 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.
