> > Backwards-incompatible, hence fodder for the mythical Sage 5.0 ...
> We deprecate after one year. I think deprecation should have nothing
> to do with "sage 5.0". The policy, which we agreed on long ago is
Sometimes we've talked about "1 year + next (major) version". My
point was that 5.0
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 10:48 AM, kcrisman wrote:
>> Personally, I'm in favor of deprecating the solve(eq, x,y) or solve(list
>> of equations, x,y,z) syntax, and would prefer that the variables be
>> specified as a list:
>
> Backwards-incompatible, hence fodder for the mythical Sage 5.0 ...
(Asid
Okay, it turns out that this is the explanation for all the weirdness
at #10750, which I hadn't bothered to figure out before. I'm updating
that ticket now.
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to
sage-devel+unsubsc
On 9/13/11 1:30 PM, John H Palmieri wrote:
On Tuesday, September 13, 2011 11:09:41 AM UTC-7, jason wrote:
On 9/13/11 12:48 PM, kcrisman wrote:
>> Personally, I'm in favor of deprecating the solve(eq, x,y) or
solve(list
>> of equations, x,y,z) syntax, and would prefer that the
On Tuesday, September 13, 2011 11:09:41 AM UTC-7, jason wrote:
>
> On 9/13/11 12:48 PM, kcrisman wrote:
> >> Personally, I'm in favor of deprecating the solve(eq, x,y) or solve(list
> >> of equations, x,y,z) syntax, and would prefer that the variables be
> >> specified as a list:
> >
> > Backward
On 9/13/11 12:48 PM, kcrisman wrote:
Personally, I'm in favor of deprecating the solve(eq, x,y) or solve(list
of equations, x,y,z) syntax, and would prefer that the variables be
specified as a list:
Backwards-incompatible, hence fodder for the mythical Sage 5.0 ...
the deprecation could go in
> Personally, I'm in favor of deprecating the solve(eq, x,y) or solve(list
> of equations, x,y,z) syntax, and would prefer that the variables be
> specified as a list:
Backwards-incompatible, hence fodder for the mythical Sage 5.0 ...
> solve(eq, [x,y]) or
> solve(list of equations, [x,y,z])
Tho
On 9/13/11 12:00 PM, Pong wrote:
Thanks for the reply. However, I'm not so sure about the intention
part of the comment
I got the solve(x+y==3, x,y), i.e. asking solve for more than one
variables strict from the current documentation (solve? )
except I dropped the redundant equation 2x+2y==6.
W
Thanks for the reply. However, I'm not so sure about the intention
part of the comment
I got the solve(x+y==3, x,y), i.e. asking solve for more than one
variables strict from the current documentation (solve? )
except I dropped the redundant equation 2x+2y==6.
Why don't solve just call the main s
On Tuesday, September 13, 2011 9:34:13 AM UTC-7, kcrisman wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sep 13, 12:08 pm, Pong wrote:
> > y,z=var('y,z'); solve(6*x + 10*y + 15*z ==1,x,y,z) gives
> > ([{x: -5/3*y - 5/2*z + 1/6}], [1])
>
> So wacky. Definitely a bug, needless to say.
>
Yes, a bug.
>
> > ([x == -y + 3]
On Sep 13, 12:08 pm, Pong wrote:
> y,z=var('y,z'); solve(6*x + 10*y + 15*z ==1,x,y,z) gives
> ([{x: -5/3*y - 5/2*z + 1/6}], [1])
So wacky. Definitely a bug, needless to say.
> ([x == -y + 3], [1])
>
> My questions are:
> 1) Why the notation are different in the 2 and 3-variable case? One
> gi
11 matches
Mail list logo
