Hi
On Sun, Jun 14, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Burcin Erocal<bur...@erocal.org> wrote:
> There were long discussion about the typesetting of partial derivatives
> in the new system, but I don't think we got to a conclusion yet.
I am afraid, we might never reach a conclusion in this regard :-)
It seems to be a classic case where we are trying to fit one size
for all.
Given the previous arguments for/against any specific scheme
for derivative typesetting and my own experience while experimenting
with sage typesetting code, I am now more inclined to follow
the strategy as outlined below.
(1) Let there be options such that one can use either typesetting
scheme by choice in run-time.
(2) By default, we follow a rather hybrid approach:
(a) If we all agree that there is no ambiguity when the particular
argument is a "symbolic variable" or "symbolic function" then
we should typeset them as those found in text-books.
Ex:
(1) D[0,0,0] (f)(x,y) => \frac{\partial^3}{\partial x^3} f(x,y)
(2) D[0] (f)(g(x,y), h(z)) => \frac{\partial}{\partial
g(x,y)} f(g(x,y), h(y))
(b) I guess, the main objective for this thread is now to decided
what should be the default scheme when the argument itself is an
"expression"
Ex: (from Burcin's mail)
(1) D[0](f)(x + y, x - y) => ? [ (i) MMA-like (ii)
Maple-like (iii) Others ]
My vote: (ii) Maple-like
Thats my two cents.
Cheers,
Golam
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
