On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Florent Hivert <florent.hiv...@univ-rouen.fr> wrote: > +1 to no simplification... > > Rationale: I think indeed that it is very important that the type of the > result of an operator depends only of the type of the operands and not of > their actual values. If > is a constructor for symbolic equation, it sounds me > perfectly good that sage returns the following: > sage: SR > Symbolic Ring > sage: SR(1) > SR(2) > 1 > 2 > because it returns: > sage: x > 2 > x > 2 > if x is symbolic.
Should I expect sage: SR(1) + SR(2) 1 + 2 just because sage: SR(x) + SR(2) x + 2 Gonzalo --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
