> Sorry for the self reply, amend that second example to clarify my intent:
> sage: f=1
> sage: # many lines of code
> sage: integrate(f) # what does this mean?
> ...
> sage: integrate(f,x)
> x
>
> Perhaps I should also say that I actually found the original versions of plot
> outright confusing
On Mar 15, 2009, at 7:29 PM, Ronan Paixão wrote:
> Em Dom, 2009-03-15 às 17:11 -0700, kcrisman escreveu:
>>
>>> Wouldn't it be clearer if the error message read
>>>
>>> NameError: name 't' is not defined, try var('t') beforehand
>>>
>>> or something similar?
>>>
>>> Perhaps as Carl deprecates c
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 11:51 AM, Joel B. Mohler wrote:
>
> On Monday 16 March 2009 12:27:10 pm kcrisman wrote:
>> sage: integrate(y^2)
>> ---
>> TypeError Traceback (most recent call
>> last)
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:03 PM, Joel B. Mohler wrote:
>
> On Monday 16 March 2009 02:51:30 pm Joel B. Mohler wrote:
>> On Monday 16 March 2009 12:27:10 pm kcrisman wrote:
>> > sage: integrate(y^2)
>> > -
>> >-- TypeError
On Monday 16 March 2009 02:51:30 pm Joel B. Mohler wrote:
> On Monday 16 March 2009 12:27:10 pm kcrisman wrote:
> > sage: integrate(y^2)
> > -
> >-- TypeError Traceback (most recent call
> > las
On Monday 16 March 2009 12:27:10 pm kcrisman wrote:
> sage: integrate(y^2)
> ---
> TypeError Traceback (most recent call
> last)
> TypeError: cannot coerce type ' 'sage.symbolic.expression.Expre
kcrisman wrote:
>
>>> I agree. As a member of the non-math-teacher part of this list, I must
>>> agree that plot(some_single_var_function_or_expression, 0, 1) should be
>>> considered as valid input.
>> The original proposal by Carl said this would work (see point 3).
>> (well, he had parentheses
> > I agree. As a member of the non-math-teacher part of this list, I must
> > agree that plot(some_single_var_function_or_expression, 0, 1) should be
> > considered as valid input.
>
> The original proposal by Carl said this would work (see point 3).
> (well, he had parentheses around the range,
Ronan Paixão wrote:
>
> I agree. As a member of the non-math-teacher part of this list, I must
> agree that plot(some_single_var_function_or_expression, 0, 1) should be
> considered as valid input.
The original proposal by Carl said this would work (see point 3).
(well, he had parentheses arou
Em Dom, 2009-03-15 às 17:11 -0700, kcrisman escreveu:
>
> > Wouldn't it be clearer if the error message read
> >
> > NameError: name 't' is not defined, try var('t') beforehand
> >
> > or something similar?
> >
> > Perhaps as Carl deprecates common anticipated behaviors he'd be open
> > to havi
> Wouldn't it be clearer if the error message read
>
> NameError: name 't' is not defined, try var('t') beforehand
>
> or something similar?
>
> Perhaps as Carl deprecates common anticipated behaviors he'd be open
> to having his patch adjust the permanent error messages (not just the
> depreca
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 14:10:32 -0500
Jason Grout wrote:
>
> Burcin Erocal wrote:
> > On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 11:45:13 -0700
> > William Stein wrote:
> >
>
> > It is a similar situation for the plot commands. Many people have
> > complained about the inconsistencies in Sage's plotting interface.
>
I would vote for consistency over convenience every time. I am
forever forgetting the * for multiplication, but I'm glad the implicit-
multiplication feature has to be consciously turned on - and I don't
plan on ever turning it on. ;-)
I don't want to reopen the debate over the variable 'x' bei
> > Looking at MMA's plot commands, only this syntax is accepted:
>
> > Plot[Sin[x], {x, 0, Pi}]
>
> > Note the explicit variable name.
>
> > I think we should try to make the syntax uniform for all the plot
> > functions, and ask the user to specify the variable in every case.
> > (This means d
> Looking at MMA's plot commands, only this syntax is accepted:
>
> Plot[Sin[x], {x, 0, Pi}]
>
> Note the explicit variable name.
>
> I think we should try to make the syntax uniform for all the plot
> functions, and ask the user to specify the variable in every case.
> (This means deprecating the
Burcin Erocal wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 11:45:13 -0700
> William Stein wrote:
>
> It is a similar situation for the plot commands. Many people have
> complained about the inconsistencies in Sage's plotting interface.
>
> Looking at MMA's plot commands, only this syntax is accepted:
>
> Plo
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 12:10 PM, Joel B. Mohler wrote:
>
> On Saturday 14 March 2009 02:45:13 pm William Stein wrote:
>> > William, shall we treat the case where the only variables in the
>> > expression is x and y specially, and allow not specifying the variables
>> > for the axis then? I think
On Saturday 14 March 2009 02:45:13 pm William Stein wrote:
> > William, shall we treat the case where the only variables in the
> > expression is x and y specially, and allow not specifying the variables
> > for the axis then? I think this makes the notation confusing and
> > inconsistent.
>
> I h
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Jason Grout
wrote:
>
> Jason Grout wrote:
>> William Stein wrote:
>>> On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Burcin Erocal wrote:
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 13:18:40 -0500
Jason Grout wrote:
> William Stein wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 11:09 AM,
William Stein wrote:
> In particular, xmin/xmax also would have to be deprecated and replaced by
> Mathematica's plot_ranges...
>
As a *former* Maple user I would prefer the syntax plot(expr, var = a..b)
Just joking, I can live with the proposal als long as it is (var, a, b)
and not {var, a, b
Jason Grout wrote:
> William Stein wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Burcin Erocal wrote:
>>> On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 13:18:40 -0500
>>> Jason Grout wrote:
>>>
William Stein wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Jason Grout
> wrote:
>> William Stein wrote:
>>> On
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 11:52 AM, Jason Grout
wrote:
>
> William Stein wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Burcin Erocal wrote:
>>> On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 13:18:40 -0500
>>> Jason Grout wrote:
>>>
William Stein wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Jason Grout
> wrote:
>
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 11:45:13 -0700
William Stein wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Burcin Erocal
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 13:18:40 -0500
> > Jason Grout wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> William Stein wrote:
> >> > On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Jason Grout
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
William Stein wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Burcin Erocal wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 13:18:40 -0500
>> Jason Grout wrote:
>>
>>> William Stein wrote:
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Jason Grout
wrote:
> William Stein wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 10:29 AM
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 11:37 AM, Burcin Erocal wrote:
>
> On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 13:18:40 -0500
> Jason Grout wrote:
>
>>
>> William Stein wrote:
>> > On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Jason Grout
>> > wrote:
>> >> William Stein wrote:
>> >>> On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Carl Witty
>> >>> w
Carl Witty wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Jason Grout
> wrote:
>> William Stein wrote:
>>> Well then we disagree. There is a very standard convention in math to
>>> have the x axis in one spot, then the y-axis.
>> What happens when you have variables u and v? Or a and b? Or t and s
On Sat, 14 Mar 2009 13:18:40 -0500
Jason Grout wrote:
>
> William Stein wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Jason Grout
> > wrote:
> >> William Stein wrote:
> >>> On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Carl Witty
> >>> wrote:
> 2) plotting
> A lot of the plotting code is willing
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 11:27 AM, Carl Witty wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 10:49 AM, William Stein wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Carl Witty wrote:
>>> 1) Piecewise functions:
>>> With my initial patch,
>>> sage: f = Piecewise([[(-1,1),1/2+x-x^3]])
>>> doesn't work (that is,
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Jason Grout
wrote:
> William Stein wrote:
>> Well then we disagree. There is a very standard convention in math to
>> have the x axis in one spot, then the y-axis.
>
> What happens when you have variables u and v? Or a and b? Or t and s
> (oops, I mean s and t
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Jason Grout
wrote:
>
> William Stein wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Jason Grout
>> wrote:
>>> William Stein wrote:
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Carl Witty wrote:
> 2) plotting
> A lot of the plotting code is willing to pick variab
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 10:49 AM, William Stein wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Carl Witty wrote:
>> 1) Piecewise functions:
>> With my initial patch,
>> sage: f = Piecewise([[(-1,1),1/2+x-x^3]])
>> doesn't work (that is, you get deprecation errors when you call f);
>> Burcin suggest
William Stein wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Jason Grout
> wrote:
>> William Stein wrote:
>>> On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Carl Witty wrote:
2) plotting
A lot of the plotting code is willing to pick variable names (in
alphabetical order) if names aren't given in t
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 11:09 AM, Jason Grout
wrote:
>
> William Stein wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Carl Witty wrote:
>
>>> 2) plotting
>>> A lot of the plotting code is willing to pick variable names (in
>>> alphabetical order) if names aren't given in the plot ranges.
>>> For in
William Stein wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Carl Witty wrote:
>> 2) plotting
>> A lot of the plotting code is willing to pick variable names (in
>> alphabetical order) if names aren't given in the plot ranges.
>> For instance, this is a doctest in plot.py:
>>sage: f = sin(x^2 +
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 10:29 AM, Carl Witty wrote:
>
> As discussed at
> http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel/browse_thread/thread/b1a03f8fc8ae8fcd/553773d7ba600ae7#553773d7ba600ae7
> , I'm writing a patch to deprecate calling symbolic expressions
> without variable names.
>
> In the course
35 matches
Mail list logo
