> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Mike Hansen wrote:
> > On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Rob Beezer wrote:
> >> OK, thanks for the explanation, Tom. p.exponents() was the missing
> >> piece I did not have.
>
> > It would probably make sense to have p.monomials() method to be
> > consistent wi
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:37 PM, Mike Hansen wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Rob Beezer wrote:
>> OK, thanks for the explanation, Tom. p.exponents() was the missing
>> piece I did not have.
>
> It would probably make sense to have p.monomials() method to be
> consistent with the multi
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 6:52 PM, Rob Beezer wrote:
> OK, thanks for the explanation, Tom. p.exponents() was the missing
> piece I did not have.
It would probably make sense to have p.monomials() method to be
consistent with the multivariate case:
sage: R. = QQ[]
sage: p = t^4 + 8
sage: p.coeffi
On May 10, 6:09 pm, Tom Boothby wrote:
> Yeah, I thought this was a bug too at one point. I discussed it with
> Craig Citro, and we were all ready to open a ticket when William
> overheard us and pointed out that it was made to be consistent with
> symbolics.
OK, thanks for the explanation, Tom.
