I have created a ticket for this at http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/8495 and have commented about how to fix the regression due to #3587 on the new ticket.
Jason, it seems like Mathematica.get() currently uses InputForm - how does this differ to FullForm? On Mar 11, 4:59 pm, Jason Grout <jason-s...@creativetrax.com> wrote: > On 03/10/2010 12:36 AM, Felix Lawrence wrote: > > > > > > > Hi David, > > > I haven't looked into these since #3587 rewrote > > MathematicaElement._sage_() for mathematica objects, but I did a bit > > of work getting the generic ExpectElement._sage_() to work with > > mathematica lists. Mathematica does return different results > > depending on whether it's running in 32-bit or 64 bit modes. This was > > on a mac. > > > Furthermore I recall seeing complex numbers from mathematica commonly > > printed with the imaginary part first. Futhermore for particularly > > long outputs from mathematica, it would seemingly randomly intersperse > > '\n' new line characters with '\r\n' new line characters, which would > > mess up any sage_eval()s. > > > So don't expect mathematica to give consistent, well-behaved output! > > > BTW > > sage: def math_bessel_K(nu,x): > > ... return mathematica(nu).BesselK(x).N(20).sage() > > ... > > sage: math_bessel_K(2,I) > > > now gives me an error: NotImplementedError: Unable to parse > > Mathematica output: > > -2.5928861754911969781676606702635284285719718407749199115289`20.1494653502 > > 82203 > > + > > > 0.1804899720669620266296208808560650432663536549483055754141`18.99213497581 > > 376*i > > > Does this work on anyone else's machine? I think #3587 may be > > responsible for the breakage. I'll look into this. > > I'm probably missing something here, but I'm curious why we are not just > converting Mathematica output to FullForm and parsing that, which would > make the output much more consistent. For example: > > In[3]:= > -2.5928861754911969781676606702635284285719718407749199115289`20.1494653502 > 82203+0.1804899720669620266296208808560650432663536549483055754141`18.99213 > 497581376*I//FullForm > > Out[3]//FullForm= > > > Complex[-2.59288617549119697816766067026352842857217277043626160947\ > > > 21`20.149465350282203, > 0.18048997206696202662962088085606504326635365\ > > > 49483055754141`18.99213497581376] > > Parsing Complex[real_part, imaginary_part] seems much easier than trying > to guess what comes first, etc. I guess I'm commenting on the strategy > in #3587 (though it admits that it uses a super-simple strategy). > > Thanks, > > 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 URL: http://www.sagemath.org
