Dear Robert, On 31 Mrz., 03:58, Robert Bradshaw <rober...@math.washington.edu> wrote: > Thanks for looking into cleaning all this stuff up. My only request > would be that we not make it harder to work with the special case of > univariate polynomials.
I agree that "cleaning up" should not imply "removing functionality". Clearly there are methods that make only sense univariately, or make only sense multivariately, or expect different argument lists in the uni- or multivariate case; this should be preserved. My aim is: * equivalent methods should get the same name (leading_coefficient versus lc; coeffs and list versus coefficients, ...); this would involve deprecation warnings. * some methods seem generic to me and should be provided in *any* kind of polynomial (probably lc, lm, lt, reduce, is_monic, ...; certainly degree/total_degree and degrees, is_univariate, ...); this would *add* functionality. Cheers, Simon --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-support-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
