Golam Mortuza Hossain wrote: > Hi, > > I am preparing patches that will resolve > > http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6465 > > and will also move symbolic integration as a sub-class > of SFunction into new symbolics. > > > Currently, Sage allows omitting variable of integration for convenience. > However, this convenience comes at a hefty price by making Sage > syntax highly inconsistent. On top of this, it mask genuine typing error > as a valid input. > > For example: "integrate(f(x), x, a, )" is treated as "integrate(f(x), x, x, > a)" > where user may have wanted to type "integrate(f(x), x, a, b)" but > missed the "b". > > Given we are moving to a new settings, I am proposing that we make > integration syntax bit stricter and consistent now. In particular, we allow > only > following inputs as valid > > (1) integrate( f(x), x) > (2) integrate( f(x), (x,a,b) ) > (3) integrate( f(x), x, a, b)
+1 actually, +however many points I can influence and vote! I've been wanting this for a very long time. If we further simplified, then +1 to keeping (1) and (2) and making (3) at least not encouraged, if not outright dropped or deprecated. The examples ought to be changed to not use (3) in the very least, I think. Jason --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
