Robert Bradshaw wrote: >>> 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. > > No, the wouldn't > > sage: implicit_multiplication(True) > sage: sin(pi) > 0 > sage: sin (pi) > 0
My bad; I should have tried it out before making the point :(. Thanks for the correction. > > Internal consistency is good, but consistency with the vast body of > mathematical literature out there is pretty valuable as well. Yes, that is one reason why I am for having all multiplications denoted by "*". Most students are familiar with this and expect this from their spreadsheets, calculators, etc. 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
