Hi Simon, On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 00:41:07 -0700 (PDT) Simon King <simon.k...@nuigalway.ie> wrote:
> @symbolic experts (Burcin et al): > Is it really necessary that x.operator() returns None and x.operands() > returns []? What about an identity operator? The operator and operands don't have a meaning if you have a single variable. I agree that the current behavior is confusing: sage: x.operands() [] sage: x.operator() is None True I suggest we raise a ValueError when there is no operator or operands. This is already done for iterators of symbolic expressions in #7537: http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/7537 Can you open a ticket to do the same for operands() and operator()? > Is it really necessary to break s.operands() into smaller pieces in > order to reconstruct a sum? Why can' op_add accept an argument list of > arbitrary length, in particular since the list of operands of a sum > can be longer than two? You are right, for add and mul we should return a function that can handle multiple arguments. I am not sure if the top level sum() and prod() functions would be suitable here though. Can you open a ticket for this as well? Thank you. Burcin -- 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
