> To me, there is no separation between "objects" and "symbols," > symbols are just a specific type of object, but I seem to be the > exception in this regard. Perhaps this is more natural to be because > I use other parts of Sage much more often than the symbolics.
We'd be a lot better off if we keep symbolic variables firmly objects and not add additional magic. I don't find this strange at all; I find all the symbolic "special case" stuff strange. >> # # # # # >> >> Possible solution: >> Since Sage is already preparsing code, it could do this: >> expr = w./x. + y./z. >> print expr(z=5) #substitution >> >> I'm not necessarily suggesting using "." as the special symbol... >> just >> something easy to hit and that doesn't conflict with reserved python >> syntax. This would be similar to $x notation in various other >> programming languages. > > Personally, I think the $x notation is particularly ugly (and yes, > I've spent plenty of time with languages that use it). The dot > notation that you suggest is an interesting one--visible without > being obtrusive and easy to preparse Ugh, I hate it like the plague: what about x./x.some_method()? Awful. 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://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
