I suggest that this automatic construction is too permissive:
sage: x
x
sage: type(x)
whereas this gives a perfectly reasonable compromise:
sage: x = var('x')
sage: x
x
sage: type(x)
I realize that one wants to strike a balance between ease of use and
the benefits of explicit
typing in defin
I'd like to use symbolic expressions in the source code to compute taylor
expansions of predefined functions. But this affects the use of variables
named the same way on the level of the user. Is there a safe way to use the
framework of symbolic calculus without affecting the variables globally?
Hello! I do not speak English, use a translator.
There is a suggestion to developers. The construction of
x = var('x')
solve(x^2 + 3*x + 2, x)
is inconvenient and not beautiful. Can do whatever in the sage of any
uninitialized variable was considered a symbolic? Then there will be
enough to write
Hi,
On Tue, Oct 29, 2019 at 04:49:03PM -0700, Michael Jung wrote:
> I'd like to use symbolic expressions in the source code to compute taylor
> expansions of predefined functions. But this affects the use of variables
> named the same way on the level of the user. Is there a safe way to use the
The issue is more subtle than that. My variable must be defined on the
complex domain. But
sage: x = SR.var('x', domain='complex')
changes the domain of x permanently.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group
On Wed, Oct 30, 2019 at 02:59:43AM -0700, Michael Jung wrote:
> The issue is more subtle than that. My variable must be defined on the
> complex domain. But
> sage: x = SR.var('x', domain='complex')
> changes the domain of x permanently.
OK, i did not understood your question. This is because sym
