On 19 Aug, 18:52, kcrisman wrote:
> > I wonder if there is a reason for this. Do the additions break the
> > lexeme or is there a syntactic ambiguity...
>
> William or Mike H. would know for sure, but I believe the additions
> are all invalid Python which happen to be convenient mathematics :)
> I wonder if there is a reason for this. Do the additions break the
> lexeme or is there a syntactic ambiguity...
William or Mike H. would know for sure, but I believe the additions
are all invalid Python which happen to be convenient mathematics :)
> > And using the preparse() command to find
On 19 Aug, 18:19, kcrisman wrote:
> On Aug 19, 12:48 pm, Bill Hart wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure if that is what he means. He is using Sage to load
> > the .py file, not python.
>
> Exactly. Sage interprets .py files as pure Python, I believe. But it
> turns .sage files into .py files which have
On Aug 19, 12:48 pm, Bill Hart wrote:
> I'm not sure if that is what he means. He is using Sage to load
> the .py file, not python.
>
Exactly. Sage interprets .py files as pure Python, I believe. But it
turns .sage files into .py files which have already been 'preparsed'.
A .py file is just P
I'm not sure if that is what he means. He is using Sage to load
the .py file, not python.
So he wants to know which modules to import to be able to use
multivariate polynomials in Sage from a (sage, not python) .py file.
He is trying to develop for Sage, not just use it from the sage
prompt.
My a
Dear Andrew,
It turns out that
R.=PolynomialRing(GF(5),2,"z")
is not valid Python, I believe; Sage has a 'preparser' that helps make
more things possible. I believe if you do
sage: preparse('command')
you will see the actual Python that gets done. One the other hand,
you could just name your
