David Philp wrote:
> On 02/09/2008, at 6:22, Robert Dodier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > * lack of syntax in programming constructs
> What does this mean?
If[x, y, z] instead "if x then y else z" or something like that
While[a, b] instead of "while a do b" or "while (a) b" or something
like
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 10:22 PM, Robert Dodier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ondrej Certik wrote:
>
>> So what things do they have wrong? So that we can learn from it.
>
> * all functions are capitalized
>
> * BumpyCaseIsHardToRead
>
> * square brackets for function arguments
>
> * two square
On 02/09/2008, at 6:22, Robert Dodier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * sets and matrices not distinguished from lists
This is a serious defect in mathematica. It has led to me making
mistakes.
Most of your other objections were matters of taste. (I agree with
most of them but they are mostly
On Sep 1, 2008, at 1:22 PM, Robert Dodier wrote:
>
> Ondrej Certik wrote:
>
>> So what things do they have wrong? So that we can learn from it.
>
> * all functions are capitalized
>
> * BumpyCaseIsHardToRead
>
> * square brackets for function arguments
>
> * two square brackets for subscripts
Ondrej Certik wrote:
> So what things do they have wrong? So that we can learn from it.
* all functions are capitalized
* BumpyCaseIsHardToRead
* square brackets for function arguments
* two square brackets for subscripts
* squiggly braces for lists
* sets and matrices not distinguish
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 6:45 PM, Robert Dodier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>
>> On Aug 30, 2008, at 4:46 PM, Robert Dodier wrote:
>
>> > From the direction this discussion has taken I'm guessing that
>> > nobody here is aware that selective evaluation is trivial in Lisp,
>
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Aug 30, 2008, at 4:46 PM, Robert Dodier wrote:
> > From the direction this discussion has taken I'm guessing that
> > nobody here is aware that selective evaluation is trivial in Lisp,
> > and Maxima. In both cases a single quote marks stuff that
> > isn't evaluated.
On Aug 30, 2008, at 4:46 PM, Robert Dodier wrote:
> Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Aug 2008, Jason Grout wrote:
>>> Jason Merrill wrote:
>
The Mathematica syntax is Hold[Integral[x,{x,0,1}]]. This remains
unevaluated until it is wrapped with an Evaluate[]. The nice thing
ab
On 31/08/2008, at 9:46 AM, Robert Dodier wrote:
>
> Robert Bradshaw wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Aug 2008, Jason Grout wrote:
>>> Jason Merrill wrote:
>
The Mathematica syntax is Hold[Integral[x,{x,0,1}]]. This remains
unevaluated until it is wrapped with an Evaluate[]. The nice thing
ab
On Aug 30, 7:46 pm, Robert Dodier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From the direction this discussion has taken I'm guessing that
> nobody here is aware that selective evaluation is trivial in Lisp,
> and Maxima. In both cases a single quote marks stuff that
> isn't evaluated. Maxima further marks a d
On Aug 30, 2008, at 7:46 PM, Robert Dodier wrote:
This kind of stuff yanks my chain in a bad way, unfortunately.
I gather it is more interesting to reinvent the wheel than learn
how to use existing, unfamiliar wheel technology. What makes
it worse is that there is talk of copying Maple and Math
> This kind of stuff yanks my chain in a bad way, unfortunately.
> I gather it is more interesting to reinvent the wheel than learn
> how to use existing, unfamiliar wheel technology. What makes
> it worse is that there is talk of copying Maple and Mathematica
> notation, which both have all sorts
Robert Bradshaw wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2008, Jason Grout wrote:
> > Jason Merrill wrote:
> >> The Mathematica syntax is Hold[Integral[x,{x,0,1}]]. This remains
> >> unevaluated until it is wrapped with an Evaluate[]. The nice thing
> >> about this syntax is that it works for any kind of expres
> Btw, as usual, I would learn from what Mathematica is doing, because
> the Hold(...) stuff seams really simple to me. So maybe the evaluate
> keyword should be used in Python. We use the "evaluate" keyword
> inconsistently in sympy so far.
Here is Mathematica's documentation for Hold:
http://r
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 11:46 AM, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 3:07 AM, Burcin Erocal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:28:03 -0400
>> Tim Lahey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Maple has a really useful feature of inert inte
On Fri, 29 Aug 2008, Jason Grout wrote:
>
> Jason Merrill wrote:
>> On Aug 29, 3:07 am, Burcin Erocal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:28:03 -0400
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Tim Lahey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
Maple has a really useful feature of inert integrals
and
Jason Merrill wrote:
> On Aug 29, 3:07 am, Burcin Erocal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:28:03 -0400
>>
>>
>>
>> Tim Lahey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> Maple has a really useful feature of inert integrals
>>> and derivatives. Basically, the integrals and derivatives
On Aug 29, 2008, at 8:17 AM, David Joyner wrote:
I like this! (I assume you meant integral, not Integral?)
But could you implement it in such a way that
sage: A = integral(x,x,0,1, evaluate=False)
sage: eval(A)
1/2
sage: latex(A)
\int_0^1 x\, dx
+1
I like this approach and is relatively c
On Aug 29, 3:07 am, Burcin Erocal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:28:03 -0400
>
>
>
> Tim Lahey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> > Maple has a really useful feature of inert integrals
> > and derivatives. Basically, the integrals and derivatives
> > show up in the equatio
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 8:01 AM, Robert Bradshaw
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
...
> I like the concept, though I'm also -1 on the capital/lowercase
> syntax. Perhaps integral could take an extra argument, so one would have
>
> sage: integral(x,x,0,1)
> 1/2
> sage: Integral(x,x,0,1, evaluate=False
On Aug 29, 2008, at 4:53 AM, Tim Lahey wrote:
>
> On Aug 29, 2008, at 6:24 AM, William Stein wrote:
>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 2:46 AM, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 3:07 AM, Burcin Erocal
>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
This is not s
On Aug 29, 2008, at 6:24 AM, William Stein wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 2:46 AM, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 3:07 AM, Burcin Erocal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
This is not supported in Sage at the moment, but it is definitely
planned. It should be f
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 6:24 AM, William Stein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 2:46 AM, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 3:07 AM, Burcin Erocal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:28:03 -0400
>>> Tim Lahey <[EMAIL PR
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 2:46 AM, David Joyner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 3:07 AM, Burcin Erocal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:28:03 -0400
>> Tim Lahey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Maple has a really useful feature of inert inte
On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 3:07 AM, Burcin Erocal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:28:03 -0400
> Tim Lahey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Maple has a really useful feature of inert integrals
>> and derivatives. Basically, the integrals and derivatives
>> show up in the
On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 15:28:03 -0400
Tim Lahey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Maple has a really useful feature of inert integrals
> and derivatives. Basically, the integrals and derivatives
> show up in the equations, but aren't evaluated until
> a command to evaluate them is explicitly giv
26 matches
Mail list logo
