On Nov 5, 2007, at 2:53 PM, Ted Kosan wrote:
> Robert wrote:
>
>> How about
>>
>> eqn.expand() # does it to both sides
>> eqn.expand('right') # does it to the right
>> eqn.expand('left') # does it to the right
>>
>> Basically, every function valid on a symbolic expression would be
>> valid on a s
Robert wrote:
> How about
>
> eqn.expand() # does it to both sides
> eqn.expand('right') # does it to the right
> eqn.expand('left') # does it to the right
>
> Basically, every function valid on a symbolic expression would be
> valid on a symbolic equation, and take an extra (optional) parameter
On 10/18/07, Ted Kosan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have been experimenting with making a subclass of SymbolicEquation
> called MutableSymbolicEquation but I like this approach better because
> it is simpler.
OK. By the way, subclassing SymbolicEquation by MutableSymbolicEquation
would be bad b
William wrote:
> On 10/17/07, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > How about replace_right instead of change_right.
> >
> > How about
> >
> > eqn.expand() # does it to both sides
> > eqn.expand('right') # does it to the right
> > eqn.expand('left') # does it to the right
> >
> > Basica
On 10/17/07, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about replace_right instead of change_right.
>
> How about
>
> eqn.expand() # does it to both sides
> eqn.expand('right') # does it to the right
> eqn.expand('left') # does it to the right
>
> Basically, every function valid on a symbo
On Oct 17, 2007, at 6:54 PM, David Harvey wrote:
> On Oct 17, 2007, at 9:50 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
>>
>> On 10/17/07, Mike Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
Bobby and I don't really like
sage: a.rhs.expand()
since it's a hackish abuse of notation and it is confusing to
On Oct 17, 2007, at 9:50 PM, William Stein wrote:
>
> On 10/17/07, Mike Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Bobby and I don't really like
>>>sage: a.rhs.expand()
>>> since it's a hackish abuse of notation and it is confusing to read.
>>> It's clever though (which is not good).
>>
>> I
On 10/17/07, Mike Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Bobby and I don't really like
> >sage: a.rhs.expand()
> > since it's a hackish abuse of notation and it is confusing to read.
> > It's clever though (which is not good).
>
> I agree with that sentiment. On the other hand, I think
>
>
> Bobby and I don't really like
>sage: a.rhs.expand()
> since it's a hackish abuse of notation and it is confusing to read.
> It's clever though (which is not good).
I agree with that sentiment. On the other hand, I think
sage: c = b.change_right(b.right().expand())
is a bit cumbersome.
William wrote:
> So you like the suggestion to do
> b.change_right(...)
> and
> b.change_left(...)
> each of which returns a new equation?
Lets see:
c = b.change_right(b.right().expand())
This looks like it will work :-)
Thanks,
Ted
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~
On 10/17/07, Ted Kosan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> So if simple attribute access is okay to do in Python, why are _right
> and _left private?
Equations are immutable, so you should *not* be changing the internal
state of equations. Actually _left and _right aren't private, they are just
"you
William wrote:
> SymbolicEquations are immutable, i.e., if you want to do something
> to change an equation you should get back a new equation object.
> The _left and _right are "private"-ish, because you are *not* supposed to
> change them. For example, when you do:
>
>b._right = b._right.e
How about having instance variables lhs and rhs which are thin
wrappers around _left and _right which return new SymbolicEquations.
That way you can do things like this:
sage: a = (16*x - 13)/6 == (3*x + 5)/2 - (4 - x)/3
sage: a *= 6
sage: a.rhs.expand()
16*x - 13 == 11*x + 7
I would also want t
On 10/17/07, Ted Kosan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It also shows how I am wanting to use expand() with a SymbolicEquation
> object. This approach seems to work fairly well except for the fact
> that SymbolicEquation's _left and _right instance variables are
> private. If these variables were p
Willam wrote:
> I like all of your suggestions above. Could you please give an example
> fake Sage session in which you illustrate use of each of the commands
> you wish Sage had? Implementing the functionality should then be
> easy for me, Bobby, or Mike Hansen (or you). But it would be good
On 10/16/07, Ted Kosan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I am currently adding a section on solving problems to the "SAGE
> Programming For Newbies" book and I would like to propose some
> enhancements to the SymbolicEquation class.
>
> The approach I am taking with the problem solving examples is to
16 matches
Mail list logo
