On Wed, 26 Aug 2009, Golam Mortuza Hossain wrote: > > Hi, > > On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 9:44 PM, kcrisman<kcris...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> While (1) and (2) syntaxes are encouraged, (3) will >>>> remain valid until we sort out the coersion issue >>>> and update all doctests, tutorial etc. BTW, I did update >>>> some of the doctests including the docstrings that you get >>>> via "integrate?" >>> >>> Sounds like we should throw a deprecation warning on it. >>> >> >> Yes, this would definitely require it. > > I agree. Personally, I would prefer to wait until we have > a proper coersion model from tuple/list to SR. So that > we can enforce it within a definite time-frame after issuing > the warning.
I don't think coercion is the way to go about it... what does x + (2,"yo") mean? Also, we want to only accept 1 or 3 items in this case, right? >> Your work on symbolics is impressive and valuable, Golam - keep it up! > > Thanks! Frankly, I am just trying to strengthen the tiny corner of Sage > that are needed for my own work. And that's exactly how the strong parts of Sage got to where they are. Thanks! - Robert --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
