On Aug 22, 12:35 pm, William Stein wrote:
> > Also, I think "f(x)" is more explicit than "f (x)".
>
> > I never use "f (x)" in Python code and wonder why it is even allowed
> > in Python instead of raising an exception.
>
> Wow, that's almost as bad as "I didn't put any cheese on the eggs for
>
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 6:06 AM, Simon King wrote:
> Hi Vladimir,
>
> On 22 Aug., 12:05, v...@ukr.net wrote:
>> Hello guys!
>> Could you please explain me (and perhaps some of the other readers)
>> the reasons (or advantages) of using implicit multiplication at all?
>> I mean in what situati
On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Chris Seberino wrote:
>
> On Aug 22, 10:28 am, v...@ukr.net wrote:
>> It seems to me that interpreting the "f (x)" as "f*x" could easily
>> confuse the people who are new to Python and Sage. They will read (or
>> maybe have already read) some book on Python and
On Aug 22, 10:28 am, v...@ukr.net wrote:
> It seems to me that interpreting the "f (x)" as "f*x" could easily
> confuse the people who are new to Python and Sage. They will read (or
> maybe have already read) some book on Python and the will try to apply
> their new knowledge in Sage, but instea
On Aug 22, 11:28 am, v...@ukr.net wrote:
> Hello!
>
> On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 07:43:28 -0700 (PDT)
>
> Chris Seberino wrote:
> > On Aug 22, 8:06 am, Simon King wrote:
> > > But apparently other people find it practical to be able to
> > > write 2x instead of 2*x.
>
> > The preference comes from y
Hello!
On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 07:43:28 -0700 (PDT)
Chris Seberino wrote:
> On Aug 22, 8:06 am, Simon King wrote:
> > But apparently other people find it practical to be able to
> > write 2x instead of 2*x.
>
> The preference comes from years of using Mathematica. Also, I think a
> space looks
On Aug 22, 8:06 am, Simon King wrote:
> But apparently other people find it practical to be able to
> write 2x instead of 2*x.
The preference comes from years of using Mathematica. Also, I think a
space looks cleaner and it is easier to type (no shift needed! :).
Chris
--
To post to this grou
On Aug 22, 3:32 am, Simon King wrote:
> On 22 Aug., 04:37, Chris Seberino wrote:
>
> > ...
> > sin (pi) # rare, sin(pi) more likely
> > f (3, 4) # rare, f(3, 4) more likely
>
> Likelihood is a not a good guideline, IMHO. I prefer rigour.
Implicit multiplication is rigorous (or any rem
On Aug 22, 12:52 am, Maarten Derickx
wrote:
> I don't think your proposal will be an enhancement. For two reasons.
>
> 1. x (x) an x*(x) have the same amount of characters.
Some people prefer implicit multiplication. It is already a feature
of Sage.
> 2. currently the python and sage expression
Hi Vladimir,
On 22 Aug., 12:05, v...@ukr.net wrote:
> Hello guys!
> Could you please explain me (and perhaps some of the other readers)
> the reasons (or advantages) of using implicit multiplication at all?
> I mean in what situations it could be useful?
I don't know any advantage of implic
Hello guys!
Could you please explain me (and perhaps some of the other readers)
the reasons (or advantages) of using implicit multiplication at all?
I mean in what situations it could be useful?
Thanks
Vladimir
-
--
To post to this group, send email to sage-support@googlegro
On 22 Aug., 04:37, Chris Seberino wrote:
> ...
> sin (pi) # rare, sin(pi) more likely
> f (3, 4) # rare, f(3, 4) more likely
Likelihood is a not a good guideline, IMHO. I prefer rigour.
> What about a run level that parses "f (3, 4)" as implicit
> multiplication?
"3," is a tuple in Pyt
I don't think your proposal will be an enhancement. For two reasons.
1. x (x) an x*(x) have the same amount of characters.
2. currently the python and sage expressions are not white space dependant.
Your suggestion would introduce such a whitespace dependancy and will be
very unexpected for a l
On Aug 21, 1:03 pm, Simon King wrote:
> If you have an object that is directly followed by parentheses, then
> in Python, which is the underlying language of Sage, it means
> function evaluation. Hence, when you write f(x) then you normally do
> NOT want to multiply f and x, but typically f is
On 21 Aug., 20:03, Simon King wrote:
> If f is a function with two variables x,y, and you want to substitute
> 2 for x and 3 for y...
I meant to say "If f is a symbolic expression...". If it is a properly
defined function in two variables x,y, then f(2,3) is fine.
Cheers,
Simon
--
To post to
Hi Chris
On 21 Aug., 17:19, Chris Seberino wrote:
> I want "x (x)" to return x^2. It doesn't seem to work with any
> implicit_multiplication level.
The use of implicit multiplication is a very improper way to talk with
a CAS, IMHO. You met one of the reasons why it is improper and error
prone.
16 matches
Mail list logo
