Ah, but I see, something like 1 + '1' doesn't work. Coercion means automatic
conversion in an operator or function call. So even then, I don't see the need
for two separate sympify functions.
Also, what is the generic stuff? The commit messages and docstrings aren't
very clear.
Aaron Meure
So are you suggesting that S(list) shouldn't work then (or else return a Tuple
or whatever)? As for the difference between coercion and conversion, aren't
they normally the same in Python anyway? For example, int(3), int(3.0), and
int('3') all return 3.
Aaron Meurer
On Dec 7, 2010, at 5:2
Le lundi 06 décembre 2010 à 13:05 -0800, Ondrej Certik a écrit :
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 11:29 AM, smichr wrote:
> >> The similarity between "simpify" and "simplify" is misleading.
> >
> > Yes, that would be...but it's SYMpify not SIMpify. But yes, they are
> > close. I (as has been pointed out)
Rather than using sympify whioch is reallly close to simplify, why don't you
use sympyfy ? I really think that is clearer.
Chrisotphe
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy" group.
To post to this group, send email to sy...@googlegroups.com.
To unsub
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 7:46 AM, Vinzent Steinberg <
vinzent.steinb...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> On 7 Dez., 03:13, Ondrej Certik wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Aaron S. Meurer
> wrote:
> >
> > > I for one think we should keep sympify() (and the S() shortcut).
> sympify() gives a nice
Yeah. I thought we had decided that that was the same as .as_base_exp().
Aaron Meurer
On Dec 7, 2010, at 8:52 AM, Vinzent Steinberg wrote:
> On 7 Dez., 10:54, smichr wrote:
>> Since as_Add and as_Mul were removed, is there any reason to keep
>> as_Pow?
>
> I think it should be removed too.
>
On 7 Dez., 10:54, smichr wrote:
> Since as_Add and as_Mul were removed, is there any reason to keep
> as_Pow?
I think it should be removed too.
Vinzent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy" group.
To post to this group, send email to sy...@google
On 7 Dez., 03:13, Ondrej Certik wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Aaron S. Meurer wrote:
>
> > I for one think we should keep sympify() (and the S() shortcut). sympify()
> > gives a nice character to SymPy, as a function named after it. I certainly
> > don't see why you would want to d
> After thinking about it for a while, I think you are right, we should
> probably keep both.
It is a good idea, and then we shall state it explicitly that S() is
just an alias. Remember the words of prophet:
Explicit
is better than implicit,
there should be one
and preferably only one
Since as_Add and as_Mul were removed, is there any reason to keep
as_Pow?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy" group.
To post to this group, send email to sy...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sympy+unsubscr...@goog
10 matches
Mail list logo
