On 3-Nov-07, at 2:43 PM, Carl Witty wrote:
> > On Nov 3, 2:35 pm, "William Stein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 11/3/07, John Voight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Why must we name the generator? There are many situations that I >>> just >>> need to work with the field without naming anything. Could we agree >>> on a default name, like 'a' or '$.1' or something? >> >> One possible idea: >> >> [2:34pm] was-547: I suspect people might suggest a scheme whereby one >> can set a rule for global auto-generation of variable names. >> [2:35pm] jvoight-1085: Yeah, as long as there's a good reason for it, >> I don't really care what the ultimate answer is. >> [2:35pm] was-547: E.g., one can set them to all be "a", or be >> a,b,c,d,e, or a0, a1, a2, >> [2:35pm] was-547: and anybody can do what they want. >> [2:35pm] was-547: Then any function that needs names can get them >> from >> that global thing. > > This seems excessively complicated to me. People who care what the > name is should specify a name; people who don't care don't want to > even think about name generation. > > I suggest a default of gen_0, gen_1, ... This is deliberately a > little ugly, both to reduce the chance of conflicting with the uesr's > variables, and to reinforce the idea that if you want a prettier name, > you should select it yourself. I would like to see this globally. Also, is there a way to return a new ring just like the old one but with different names? 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/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
