William Stein wrote: > 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.
Sure. I'm not particularly tied to anything in this case. Thanks, Jason --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
