On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 10:48 AM, Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > David Joyner wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 1:07 PM, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 10:00 AM, UAT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > >> > Wow, I didn't know this! I already wondered why SAGE should make such > >> > a stupid mistake. Thanks for the fast answer! > >> > > >> > >> Because people get confused by this, we will likely remove the kernel > >> command and have only left_kernel() and right_kernel(). > > > > +1 > > (and maybe add kernel_left and kernel_right for those of us addicted > > to tab completion) > > > Or maybe kernel(action='left') and kernel(action='right') for those of > us who try not to be overwhelmed with the tab completion list. > > I started work on this, but the semester got busy. I'd like to finish > it before a linear algebra program in July, if noone else beats me to it. >
NO. Like Nick Alexander, I do not like the above suggestion at all. I think that options to method functions like this, when possible, shouldn't completely change the behavior of the function so drastically. Usually, when possible they should just change the underlying algorithm or fine details of what is being computed. Thus I greatly prefer kernel_left and kernel_right to what you suggest. For the matrix(...) constructor that you rewrote I really like what you did. But a general matrix constructor is a different sort of thing. William -- William --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
