Alex Ghitza wrote: > On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 2:03 PM, Jason Grout > <jason-s...@creativetrax.com <mailto:jason-s...@creativetrax.com>> wrote: > > > seber...@spawar.navy.mil <mailto:seber...@spawar.navy.mil> wrote: > > Carl > > > > Mathematica seems to have been successful with this approach. I'm > > curious what were the reasons for its disapproval. Perhaps it was > > feared it was error prone? > > > Along with the other reasons people are giving, it may be helpful to > remember that it is may be less error-prone in MMA. For example, > parentheses in Sage can denote function calling as well as grouping, > while they only denote grouping in MMA. With implicit multiplication, > func (x) and func(x) are both valid in Sage, but have different > meanings. In MMA, they both are multiplication, like you'd expect from > math. > > > ??? so you're saying that in Mathematica sin(x) means sin times x? > That's not what I'd expect from math... > > I must be misreading what you wrote. >
Nope, you're correct. That's a nice thing about Mathematica. Function calls are always with square brackets, parentheses are purely a grouping construct. Curly braces are always lists, and double square brackets are indexing (but that's just syntactical sugar). System functions always use camel-case. I really like the consistency in mathematica; it makes it easy to learn and predictable. So your example would be Sin[x] in MMA. Jason --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
