On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 8:48 PM, William Stein wrote:
> In retrospect, it appears that the OP should have asked the following
> question: From the perspective of Sage, if Python were to have
> another arithmetic operator (denoted @) with identical precedence
> rules to *, would we use it for any
On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 8:32 PM, Nils Bruin wrote:
> On Sunday, March 9, 2014 8:09:58 AM UTC-7, n...@vorpus.org wrote:
>>
>> Greetings, Sage Ones,
>>
>> Some of you may have already seen this, but I've started working on a
>> draft PEP for adding a dedicated operator for matrix multiplication to
>
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 10:15 AM, Nicolas M. Thiery
wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 12:51:46AM +0000, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>> > Thus, it would certainly be a reasonable PEP to provide a framework in
>> > Python to define custom infix operators (say, operator.compose)
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 10:26 PM, rjf wrote:
> Maxima, part of Sage, has had an extensible (at run time) parser for
> perhaps 35 years.
> You could ask about the experience there, maybe read about the pros and
> cons.
> Or you could be more conventional and ignore others' past experience. :)
>
On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 12:43 PM, Niles Johnson wrote:
> Second, I think your last sentence is too much of a stretch. It's fair to
> say that Sage shipping an infix hack is (possibly) evidence that people
> love infix operators. (Although the fact that it's not used much would
> suggest that the
..
> Such discussion sure makes sense in a CAS, though..
>
> On 2014-03-09, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>> ...
>> R alsos use * for elementwise mul. And really, it does work fine and
>> is useful in many application areas, I promise! :-) I've sent similar
>> heads-u
On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 8:44 PM, William Stein wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 9, 2014 at 12:40 PM, wrote:
>> On Sunday, March 9, 2014 7:20:50 PM UTC, Jeroen Demeyer wrote:
>>>
>>> I think the following piece should be made more clear, I don't
>>> understand what you're trying to say here:
>>>
>>> The probl
