I'm sorry... I wanted to say: is there any plan to make factor() working with new symbolic as well? I could see one minute ago that expand is already there (although I'm not aware whether is this performed through maxima or not, but I don't think so, since it is a built-in method for a pynac object).
Yes, the problem is that I found them quite slow, even though this could arise from complex expressions. Unfortunately, I have not any commercial software to compare with. Should I compare it with evaluation time from working directly within maxima? Maurizio On Mar 30, 4:24 pm, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 7:19 AM, Maurizio <maurizio.gran...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > One question: is there any plan to replace expand(), factor() and > > other functions like these? > > Replace them with what? Do you mean, implement them? > > >I don't see them mentioned in the todo, > > and I always find their usage so much time consuming... > > Do you mean that they are too slow in the current symbolics? > > > > > > > Thanks > > > Maurizio > > > On Mar 29, 1:47 pm, Burcin Erocal <bur...@erocal.org> wrote: > >> Hi, > > >> I put up a preliminary todo list for the switch to pynac here: > > >>http://wiki.sagemath.org/symbolics/switch_todo > > >> I made the list by changing the default of the "var" command to create > >> pynac variables, and running the doctests. Looking at the results I > >> realised that I should have made other changes, such as export the new > >> symbolic ring (NSR) to the command line as SR. These are listed in the > >> first section of that page. > > >> Next section gives a list of methods which the pynac symbolic > >> expressions (sage.symbolic.expression.Expression) need to implement. > >> The last section is miscellaneous stuff I didn't want to classify > >> further. > > >> Some time next week, I will put a clean version of the switchover > >> patch, along with a new pynac package and some fixes to the sage > >> library so others can reproduce the results above. > > >> After looking through the errors caused by the switch, I have a few > >> questions: > > >> - Syntax for derivative and integrate functions: > > >> Current symbolics allows this: > > >> sage: (x^2).integrate() > >> x^3/3 > > >> I propose to make the integration variable explicit, by deprecating > >> this use, and encouraging the use of this: > > >> sage: (x^2).integrate(x) > >> x^3/3 > > >> Note that the MMA syntax for Integrate also asks for the variable > >> explicitly. > > >> Same goes for .derivative(), current symbolics works without specifying > >> a variable. While this usage might be ok in a univariate polynomial > >> ring, where the variable is known already, I think it's better to ask > >> the user to explicitly state the variable. > > >> - What do we do with the old tests? > > >> In the sage/calculus/ directory there are files which contain only > >> tests. What shall I do with these? Copy them to sage/symbolics/test, > >> change the old ones to use old symbolics variables to test the old > >> code, and make the new copies test the new code? > > >> Or, what do you think should happen to the old code? How long are we > >> going to keep it around? > > >> Comments? > > >> Cheers, > >> Burcin > > -- > William Stein > Associate Professor of Mathematics > University of Washingtonhttp://wstein.org --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
