I agree that RR(expr) works well as an N(expr) replacement. It would be nice for mathematica migrators to actually have N() defined, although that does clutter up the namespace more.
I hadn't realized that mathematica was so unusual in its behavior in this regard. However, there's another environment that behaves that way - python itself! If you multiply 1.0*1, the answer is a float. -Marshall On Jul 10, 1:39 am, Nick Alexander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Ted Kosan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > In SAGE, I have ended up using the numerical_approx() method as an > > equivalent to N[] and //N in Mathematica, but I have found it not to > > be as quick and easy to use. > > I use RR(expr) and find it at least as usable as the N[expr] notation > of Mathematica. > > Nick --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
