Dear sage-devel, The recently merged Pynac 0.1.9 now automatically evaluates "inexact" (whatever that means) input to most functions, like trig, gamma, etc.
Should it do this for rationals? See #5556, in particular, where this causes confusion. What is actually going on is that gamma(3/4) automatically has prec=53, but then calling .n(100) semi-randomly "improves" upon that, which is documented as a no-no elsewhere. But in this case it's not obvious how to obtain extra precision except by passing in a RealField(100) element or something, as opposed to sqrt (though sqrt seems to be unique in this regard). My thought is that rationals are "exact" enough that maybe they shouldn't be autoevaluated, but I don't know what the consensus would be on that. Thoughts? Or maybe we should just add a 'prec' keyword to all known symbolic functions. <mini-rant> Unfortunately all this stuff is sort of hidden in the Pynac spkg rather than being easy to get at. I understand the rationale behind that, but it's still unfortunate that one would have to make a new spkg to fix something like this (if indeed it needs fixing). </mini-rant> - kcrisman --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
