[sage-devel] Re: Bug in inverse_laplace?

2009-03-19 Thread Jason Grout
Golam Mortuza Hossain wrote: > Thanks Minh and Robert, > > On Mar 18, 8:28 pm, Robert Bradshaw > wrote: >> This is because (f)(x) calls f at x rather than performing >> multiplication. It is for exactly this kind of reason that we're >> deprecating the "call without explicit arguments" behav

[sage-devel] Re: Bug in inverse_laplace?

2009-03-19 Thread Golam Mortuza Hossain
Thanks Minh and Robert, On Mar 18, 8:28 pm, Robert Bradshaw wrote: > This is because (f)(x) calls f at x rather than performing   > multiplication. It is for exactly this kind of reason that we're   > deprecating the "call without explicit arguments" behavior. OK, now I understand the underlyin

[sage-devel] Re: Bug in inverse_laplace?

2009-03-18 Thread Robert Bradshaw
On Mar 18, 2009, at 4:19 PM, Minh Nguyen wrote: > Hi Golam, > > On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:59 PM, Golam Mortuza Hossain > wrote: >> >> Hi All, >> >> Firstly, let me thank you for this wonderful >> effort. I have been using Sage for last six months >> almost exclusively and I must say that I am r

[sage-devel] Re: Bug in inverse_laplace?

2009-03-18 Thread Minh Nguyen
Hi Golam, On Wed, Mar 18, 2009 at 10:59 PM, Golam Mortuza Hossain wrote: > > Hi All, > > Firstly, let me thank you for this wonderful > effort. I have been using Sage for last six months > almost exclusively and I must say that I am really > impressed by Sage. > > While computing the following i