Hi,
if it can help, here are two remarks:
First, P.coeffs does not shortcut anything compared to P.coefficients
because we have tab completion. It even slows things down: if i want
coefficients, i will write P.coe and then it will not auto-complete
fully because coeffs adds a breaking node betwee
Thanks, everyone. I agree with Bruno's improvement on my suggestion. I will
do this in the next few days, but I am first traveling, & I may need a
reminder.
I also think the interfaces between univariate & multivariate polynomials
should be brought more in line, but that seems like quite a bit
Hello John,
As a very regular user of these functions, I think this is useful to
have both (and luckily you don't want to remove one or the other!). For
the documentation, I agree that it could and should be clearer!
For your proposition, I am quite reluctant on using "dense" and "sparse"
in
Hello Sages
Last week (?) I noticed that a program I wrote was making a mistake,
because f.coeffs() and f.coefficients() return very different results: the
former provides a dense representation (with 0's), the second a sparse one
(no 0's, correlating with f.exponents()).
I like this OK, but t
