On Mar 12, 3:17 pm, Jason Grout <jason-s...@creativetrax.com> wrote: > So the Mathematica *input* syntax is closer to the sage *input* syntax, > while the mathematica full form (i.e., the internal tree of operations) > is closer to the sage tree of operations. That makes a lot of sense. > For software<->software translation, in the long run, it will probably > make more sense to hook up the two operation trees, rather than deal > with the sometimes vague output printing of one going into the input > printing of the other. > > So we just need to hook the mathematica into a lower level of Sage (at > the pynac level) where the expressions are more consistent. I know very little about pynac, but isn't it designed specifically for symbolic expressions? How would you handle mathematica output that isn't a symbolic expression? Should we try to detect the type of output and route it to pynac or whatever sage module is appropriate? I don't think that I have enough knowledge about sage to do this - I'd be much more comfortable writing a patch that just converts the repr() and lets sage_eval (with an automatically generated locals dictionary) sort it all out. But if you'd like to write a patch working at a lower level that converts both symbolic and numerical mathematica results into pynac/numpy/whatever's appropriate, then I'll defer to you!
Cheers, Felix -- 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
