David Joyner wrote: > On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Jason Grout > <jason-s...@creativetrax.com> wrote: > > ... > >> What about nintegrate/nintegral? We don't have these now (as top-level >> functions), but they would mirror nicely the integral/integrate >> commands. Should we only define one of them? >> > > Is integral_numerical a possibility (for those who like tab-completions)? > There are a lot of commands which don't play nice with tab-completion > (eg, matrix_plot) but it is nice if we could at least add this as an alias. > Also, a former colleague liked Maple's choice of designing the syntax > of integral > and that of plot (and the 3d versions) to be very similar. That way a > student could compute an area and plot the area with roughly the same > syntax. Does that seem reasonable?
I used to be concerned about the naming conventions not playing nicely with tab completion. However, previous conversations about this convinced me of this: rather than twist our naming conventions to be unnatural English, I'd rather make our tab-completion system smarter. For example, I'd rather have something like shift-tab give all completions that contain the word (as opposed to tab giving all completions starting with the word). Would that satisfy you too? Then a student could just type: integral<shift-tab> and get a list of all accessible functions containing the word "integral", similar to what we'd get if we just typed: *integral*? at the command line. Thanks, Jason -- Jason Grout --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 URL: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
