I'm a bit against the preparser idea and adding stuff to it, too. I'm
curious if there will be a way to define a custom operator in python
some time in the future. I think these sorts of ideas will be solved
if there is a clear way how to define one without running into
troubles anytime in the futu
>> I think that having a way to make anonymous functions is very
>> important. While, as someone relatively new to sage, I haven't used in
>> sage, I use it all the time in math (For example, my prefered
>> definition of the Mandlebrot set is {x|x ∊ ℂ; lim_(n->∞)
>> (λz:z^2+x)ⁿ(0)≠∞} )...
>>
>> I q
On Dec 14, 5:23 pm, Jaap Spies wrote:
> Maybe you are also a lisp lover. But please, let Sage be as close to
> Python as possible!
>
> Jaap
Lisp lover! Now those are fightin' words!
-Marshall
--
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this gro
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Dec 14, 2009, at 12:15 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>
>> Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>>> On Dec 14, 2009, at 11:43 AM, Carlos Córdoba wrote:
>>>
I have to agree with Marshall, because it could be confusing for new
sage users that come from python to see such a d
Christopher Olah wrote:
> I think that having a way to make anonymous functions is very
> important. While, as someone relatively new to sage, I haven't used in
> sage, I use it all the time in math (For example, my prefered
> definition of the Mandlebrot set is {x|x ∊ ℂ; lim_(n->∞)
> (λz:z^2+x)ⁿ(0
Marshall Hampton wrote:
>
> Mathematica's syntax can be quite dense, which has the same
> disadvantage as Perl code in my opinion - it can be hard to read. But
> sometimes it is nice to be able to do so much concisely. I miss it
> sometimes.
>
Maybe you are also a lisp lover. But please, let Sag
I think that having a way to make anonymous functions is very
important. While, as someone relatively new to sage, I haven't used in
sage, I use it all the time in math (For example, my prefered
definition of the Mandlebrot set is {x|x ∊ ℂ; lim_(n->∞)
(λz:z^2+x)ⁿ(0)≠∞} )...
I quite like the idea o
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:31:14PM +0100, Jaap Spies wrote:
> Martin Rubey wrote:
> > Carlos Córdoba writes:
> >
> >> Anyway, the use of anonymous functions is mostly useful on constructs
> >> that operate over lists, like map and reduce. In 10 years of using
> >> Mathematica I've ever needed to d
Mathematica's syntax can be quite dense, which has the same
disadvantage as Perl code in my opinion - it can be hard to read. But
sometimes it is nice to be able to do so much concisely. I miss it
sometimes.
-Marshall
On Dec 14, 3:31 pm, Jaap Spies wrote:
>
> I truly hope this 'hocus pocus'
Martin Rubey wrote:
> Carlos Córdoba writes:
>
>> Anyway, the use of anonymous functions is mostly useful on constructs
>> that operate over lists, like map and reduce. In 10 years of using
>> Mathematica I've ever needed to derive this kind functions, but
>> nevertheless I've checked if it's poss
Carlos Córdoba writes:
> Anyway, the use of anonymous functions is mostly useful on constructs
> that operate over lists, like map and reduce. In 10 years of using
> Mathematica I've ever needed to derive this kind functions, but
> nevertheless I've checked if it's possible, and indeed it is, for
2009/12/14 Robert Bradshaw
> On Dec 14, 2009, at 12:15 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>
> > Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> >> On Dec 14, 2009, at 11:43 AM, Carlos Córdoba wrote:
> >>
> >>> I have to agree with Marshall, because it could be confusing for new
> >>> sage users that come from python to se
On Dec 14, 2009, at 12:15 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> On Dec 14, 2009, at 11:43 AM, Carlos Córdoba wrote:
>>
>>> I have to agree with Marshall, because it could be confusing for new
>>> sage users that come from python to see such a different syntax
>>> meaning.
>>>
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Dec 14, 2009, at 11:43 AM, Carlos Córdoba wrote:
>
>> I have to agree with Marshall, because it could be confusing for new
>> sage users that come from python to see such a different syntax
>> meaning.
>>
>> But what about the Mathematica syntax? Could it be adopted
On Dec 14, 2009, at 11:43 AM, Carlos Córdoba wrote:
> I have to agree with Marshall, because it could be confusing for new
> sage users that come from python to see such a different syntax
> meaning.
>
> But what about the Mathematica syntax? Could it be adopted by sage?
The Mathematica synta
On Dec 14, 11:43 am, Carlos Córdoba wrote:
> I have to agree with Marshall, because it could be confusing for new sage
> users that come from python to see such a different syntax meaning.
>
> But what about the Mathematica syntax? Could it be adopted by sage?
>
> The problem is that most CAS are
On Dec 14, 2009, at 8:01 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
>> I don't know if it's a good idea to make this valid Sage syntax,
>> though.
>>I'm on the fence, but leaning towards not favoring it just because
>> of the added complexity and the departure from true Python, and the
>> python versio
I have to agree with Marshall, because it could be confusing for new sage
users that come from python to see such a different syntax meaning.
But what about the Mathematica syntax? Could it be adopted by sage?
The problem is that most CAS are functional in nature and the first thing
one tries to
I felt ambivalent about adding the "->" until this point. If "->" is
going to mean something else in python eventually, it seems like a bad
idea to overload it in a Sage-specific way.
-Marshall
On Dec 14, 10:01 am, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
wrote:
>
> Note that -> gets a meaning in Python 3, to ann
Jason Grout wrote:
> kcrisman wrote:
>
>> On Dec 14, 9:19 am, Carlos Córdoba wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think it would be so hard to do but this could break
>>> interoperability with Python, the language on which Sage is based. Besides
>>> it could make Sage like a dialect of python, something
kcrisman wrote:
>
> On Dec 14, 9:19 am, Carlos Córdoba wrote:
>> I don't think it would be so hard to do but this could break
>> interoperability with Python, the language on which Sage is based. Besides
>> it could make Sage like a dialect of python, something that sage devs don't
>> want to do.
Then that sounds like another Python syntax error we could make
available. Not sure we'd want to, though.
- kcrisman
> > for those coming from Maple. What does Mathematica do for such
> > anonymous functions (if anything)?
>
> #^2+1 & (note the & is important; it says what comes before is an
>
kcrisman wrote:
>
> On Dec 14, 9:19 am, Carlos Córdoba wrote:
>> I don't think it would be so hard to do but this could break
>> interoperability with Python, the language on which Sage is based. Besides
>> it could make Sage like a dialect of python, something that sage devs don't
>> want to do.
On Dec 14, 9:19 am, Carlos Córdoba wrote:
> I don't think it would be so hard to do but this could break
> interoperability with Python, the language on which Sage is based. Besides
> it could make Sage like a dialect of python, something that sage devs don't
> want to do.
>
> Unfortunately pyth
24 matches
Mail list logo
