kcrisman <kcris...@gmail.com> writes: > On May 10, 7:01 pm, Keshav Kini <keshav.k...@gmail.com> wrote: >> kcrisman <kcris...@gmail.com> writes: >> > This only works for x, though. >> >> I feel obligated to jump in here and say that this is one of the most >> confusing and "not beautiful" things I've seen in Sage - and you run >> into it almost immediately when learning the ropes. Yuck. >> > > To be clear, are you complaining about defining *only* x or that x > *is*, in fact, predefined? In any case, this is a discussion we > probably don't need to rehash now, granted that there will never be > peace between the Python purists and Maple wannabes.
That x *is*, in fact, predefined. It misleads the user into expecting that other variable names will also be predefined, whereas in fact they are not. FWIW I don't think it's feasible to implement Mathematica-style (or Maple-style, I gather) "every undefined symbol is treated as a symbolic atom rather than an error" behavior and still claim that Sage is basically Python. That's too much of a modification. Though I like the idea, it just doesn't seem to me to fit well with Sage, to me. But regardless of which way we go, we should be consistent. Having one seemingly arbitrary variable "x" be magically defined and others not is really bad design, IMO. -Keshav ---- Join us in #sagemath on irc.freenode.net ! -- 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
