> > I wonder if there would be some consistent way to make 1..4 stand for > > an iterator, and [1..4] a list. Hmm: then since we'd want [2,3,5..9] > > to be a list, we'd want 2,3,5..9 to be an iterator, whereas (2,3,5..9) > > would presumably be a tuple, which seems problematic. Is there a > > clean way to handle this?
I vote against it! (a) because I usually vote against preparser changes :-) (b) it means SAGE is slowly getting its own language and (c) it breaks conventions, i.e. it adds confusion IMHO. (d) It might be because I used to be CS major but I think it is okay just educate users about the -- wildly used -- Python (and C and Java) convention. (e) It is not a math paper you are writing in SAGE but they are writing code in a programming language and you are using a library with a lot of math capabilities. Martin -- name: Martin Albrecht _pgp: http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x8EF0DC99 _www: http://www.informatik.uni-bremen.de/~malb _jab: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
