On Thursday, November 27, 2014 at 5:29:35 PM UTC+7, Nathann Cohen wrote:
>
> > Of course, proposing the statu quo may be unpopular ;-). Another
> solution I
> > can propose is to keep f.coefficients() as it is, make f.coeffs() an
> alias
> > of the former, and only keep f.list() for the list
>
> http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17438
>
This is now ready. Let's do some mutual review.
First, not all expressions are polynomial expressions!
>
Indeed, one reason I'm interested in this is symbolic power series:
http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/17399
Also, why such a hurry to remove stuff i
I *did ask if I should deprecate, I just wasn't sure if we can deprecate
the alias.
On Wed Dec 03 2014 at 4:10:25 PM john_perry_usm wrote:
> Will the ticket you've opened also deal with multivariate polynomial
> ideals, or are you working on symbolic expressions only?
>
Yes. It's almost always
Sorry for the delay in replying; as noted earlier, I've been traveling. I
agree with Samuel; it's important to deprecate first. Some of us run
scripts that will break if you simply remove the command, but a deprecation
warning both allows the script to keep running and (if it's a good warning)
2014-12-03 10:27:53 UTC+1, Ralf Stephan wrote:
>
> Sorry, a bit late. I also agree with removing *coeffs* and referring to
> *list *in the documentation of *coefficients*.
>
> What's more, the issue comes up with symbolic expressions too, where
> *coeffs *is an alias of* coefficients*, and ther
Sorry, a bit late. I also agree with removing *coeffs* and referring to
*list *in the documentation of *coefficients*.
What's more, the issue comes up with symbolic expressions too, where
*coeffs *is an alias of* coefficients*, and there is no list function. This
would be the perfect opportuni
You want this one:
sage: R. = QQ[]
sage: (x^2+2*y+1).dict()
{(0, 0): 1, (0, 1): 2, (2, 0): 1}
On Sunday, November 30, 2014 8:06:28 AM UTC, rjf wrote:
>
> maybe this could be added.
> A method called something like ExponentCoeffPairsExcludingZeros,
> which would return a list of pairs, in so
maybe this could be added.
A method called something like ExponentCoeffPairsExcludingZeros,
which would return a list of pairs, in some exponent
order.
Maybe that's inconvenient in Python/sympy.
RJF
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-de
On Thursday, November 27, 2014 2:23:09 AM UTC-8, Bruno Grenet wrote:
>
> While I agree that the current names can be confusing, we have to be
> careful not to make something even more confusing. As mentioned earlier
> by John, f.coefficients() is "correlated" with f.exponents() and I think
> it
Le 27/11/2014 11:29, Nathann Cohen a écrit :
Of course, proposing the statu quo may be unpopular ;-). Another solution I
can propose is to keep f.coefficients() as it is, make f.coeffs() an alias
of the former, and only keep f.list() for the list of all the coefficients.
If I understand what you
> Of course, proposing the statu quo may be unpopular ;-). Another solution I
> can propose is to keep f.coefficients() as it is, make f.coeffs() an alias
> of the former, and only keep f.list() for the list of all the coefficients.
If I understand what you said, you want "coefficients" to be left
Le 27/11/2014 10:47, Nathann Cohen a écrit :
It seems to me that as a general principle, a method whose name is an
abbreviation of the name of another method should actually be the same
method. Anything else is hugely confusing to a user. Both the
functionalities described are, of course, usef
> It seems to me that as a general principle, a method whose name is an
> abbreviation of the name of another method should actually be the same
> method. Anything else is hugely confusing to a user. Both the
> functionalities described are, of course, useful, but giving them such
> similar names
On Wednesday, November 26, 2014 8:06:31 PM UTC, john_perry_usm wrote:
>
> I would propose the following:
>
> *f.coeffs?* should state something to the effect of, "Returns all the
> coefficients of a dense representation of f."
>
> *f.coefficients?* should state something like, "Returns all the
Hi John,
On 2014-11-26, john_perry_usm wrote:
> I would propose the following:
>
> *f.coeffs?* should state something to the effect of, "Returns all the
> coefficients of a dense representation of f."
>
> *f.coefficients?* should state something like, "Returns all the
> coefficients of a sparse
15 matches
Mail list logo
