On Feb 26, 2009, at 9:08 PM, Carl Witty wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 8:55 PM, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> Just out of curiosity, do you think we should also get rid of this? >> >> sage: R.<x> = ZZ[] >> sage: x(x+1) >> x + 1 > > Ouch, that's a tougher question, since I actually use that > construct :) > > But since I don't want to be a total hypocrite, I'm going to say yes, > we should get rid of it.
I'm would vote no, that would be pedantic to the point of reducing usability. My justification is that ZZ[x] can be viewed as the set of rational functions from Z to Z, much closer to the "f(x) = x^2+1" than "f = x^2+1" construction. There is a well-defined "input variable" for all elements of ZZ[x], even constant ones, unlike the "symbolic ring" where the "inputs" are not well defined. However, what about plot(x^2, 0, 10)? I can see that plot(x^2, (x, 0, 10)) would still work... BTW, the the issue of implicit multiplication came up. It would not accept "x(x+1)"--it only handles cases that are otherwise invalid syntax, like "2x". > (With a deprecation message -- eventually to > be replaced by an error message -- that gives the recommended > replacement.) > > So, should I prepare patches that deprecate implicit calling of > symbolics Yes. > and of polynomials? (Would they be likely to be accepted?) > > Carl > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
