Hi,
On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:20 PM, kcrisman<kcris...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> So the conclusion is that we will go with the Mathematica style notation.
>
> Does that also apply to Golam's earlier comment
>
> (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))
>
> so that we will no longer see nicely typeset partial derivatives even
> in case (a)(1) (or even Leibniz notation at all?), or is it only in
> the case (b) "when the argument is an expression"? Thanks for the
> clarification.
As Burcin pointed out that even MMA uses different Tex-ing scheme
for some situations such as F'[x] for D[F[x],x]. So strictly speaking even
MMA uses hybrid approach.
I guess, we should aim for doing better than MMA/Maple.
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
