On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 6:06 AM, Simon King <simon.k...@uni-jena.de> wrote: > Hi Vladimir, > > On 22 Aug., 12:05, v...@ukr.net wrote: >> Hello guys! >> Could you please explain me (and perhaps some of the other readers) >> the reasons (or advantages) of using implicit multiplication at all? >> I mean in what situations it could be useful? > > I don't know any advantage of implicit multiplication, and that's why > I wouldn't like to drop Python syntax for implicit multiplication's > sake. But apparently other people find it practical to be able to > write 2x instead of 2*x.
Or paste. Personally, I found this handy when writing a lot of polynomials/power series. When my brain was in "math mode" I kept getting interrupted by syntax errors :). As far as this proposal, we try to be very cautious when adding anything to the preparser, and double cautious when changing the meaning of valid Python syntax. With the exception of leading whitespace for code blocks, Sage/Python is not whitespace sensitive. Also, to throw my 2 cents in, "f (x)" looks like a function call to me. As for the OP's original deprecation warning, this was to fix the ambiguity of sage: f = x^2 sage: g = t + 1 sage: h = f + g sage: h(2, 3) <take a guess> sage: z = f - x^2 sage: z(3) BOOM - Robert -- 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
