Hi, On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 8:31 PM, Robert Bradshaw<rober...@math.washington.edu> wrote: >> On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 3:11 PM, William Stein<wst...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>>>> Or should we just restore old "diff" by simply sub-classing it >>>>> from SFunction like what is being done for "integration" >>>>> and others? >>> >>> At first glance doing this sounds like a really good idea. How hard >>> would it be for you to make a mock-up prototype of this to more >>> clearly demonstrate it? I'm definitely not opposed. >> >> OK, here is a prototype implementation. >> >> This is based on the principle that we stop applying chain rule >> when we hit a symbolic function and whose derivative isn't defined >> in sage/pynac. > > Excellent idea!
Thanks Robert. Its now up to Sage policy maker to decide whether to continue with pynac fderivative. Inability to substitute the argument of D[] has ensured that I am forced out from using new sage symbolics for my own work. 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
