On Dec 14, 9:19 am, Carlos Córdoba <ccordob...@gmail.com> wrote: > I don't think it would be so hard to do but this could break > interoperability with Python, the language on which Sage is based. Besides > it could make Sage like a dialect of python, something that sage devs don't > want to do. > > Unfortunately python is not a very friendly functional programming > language, although it has some constructs that can help you if you like to > do things in the functional style. > > Hope this helps, > Carlos > > 2009/12/13 Alasdair <amc...@gmail.com> > > > > > In some CAS's (Sage, Maxima), the "lambda" construct is used for an > > anonymous function: > > > p=prime_range(30) > > map(lambda x:x^2+1,p) > > > whereas in others, an arrow notation is used: > > > map(x->x^2+1,p) (Maple, MuPAD) > > map(x+->x^2+1,p) (Axiom) > > > I'm very fond of the convenience of arrow notation. Would it be very > > hard to incorporate such a notation into the Sage parser?
If this would cause a Python syntax error, then presumably foo -> bar could be turned into lambda foo: bar, which would be completely native. Perhaps someone who is quite familiar with the preparser will comment. But this seems like a reasonable thing to add, particularly for those coming from Maple. What does Mathematica do for such anonymous functions (if anything)? - kcrisman -- To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-support+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URL: http://www.sagemath.org
