On Wed, 17 Jun 2009 09:20:31 +0200
William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2009 at 8:23 AM, Robert
> Bradshaw<rober...@math.washington.edu> wrote:
> >
> > On Jun 14, 2009, at 1:19 PM, William Stein wrote:
> >
> >> Personally, I prefer the Mathematica notation because I can
> >> actually read it. I have (serious!) trouble reading the current
> >> notation that Sage uses and I can barely read the Maple notation
> >> either. With the Mathematica notation it is totally completely
> >> obvious to me what is going on.
> >
> > If it wasn't obvious from my previous comments in former threads, I
> > am of this opinion as well. I would actually be for disallowing the
> > bare function('f') from the global namespace altogether and forcing
> > the user to provide named, ordered dummy variables (what does it
> > actually mean?)
>
> I'm not opposed to that suggestion. I have no idea what
> "function('f')" even means.
I don't think forcing the user to provide dummy variables when creating
the function is a good approach. I don't see where the variables
would be needed, other than printing differentials. If we go with the
MMA notation we won't need them even then.
It makes sense to provide a function that takes the variables as
arguments, and pretty prints differentials with the df/dx notation
though. We already have the code to do this, afair first written by
Jason, and now Golam.
Cheers,
Burcin
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
