> Sorry for the self reply, amend that second example to clarify my intent: > sage: f=1 > sage: # many lines of code > sage: integrate(f) # what does this mean? > ... > sage: integrate(f,x) > x > > Perhaps I should also say that I actually found the original versions of plot > outright confusing because I *didn't* have to specify the variable. > Mathematically, it's supposed to be a dummy variable so it should have to be > specified. Maybe I'm just silly and pedantic, but the fact that it > automatically "dummified" my variable confused me. I do realized that these > things can be done in a well-defined way, but the fact that the 0 variable > case was (and is) a source of bugs leads me to believe that no one really > understood this at the start and that didn't give me confidence in the > design.
That's really interesting as an argument, actually, because my own thoughts were exactly the opposite - that it doesn't matter what the 'dummy' variable is, so if there is only one possibility you might as well take the one that's there, e.g. in "1" we take the only predefined variable "x" as the one. sage: integrate(1) x is probably the correct answer, to be honest. But as you say, dead horses, and I'm verging on that too now. - kcrisman --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
