Re: [sympy] Re: Vector Calculus module

Try using numbered_symbols(). Aaron Meurer On Thu, May 2, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Prasoon Shukla wrote: > I had a 2 day break between exams so I began work on the CoordSystem > class. Hopefully, I'll be able to make a WIP PR before 15th. > > One problem I am facing is this: In this class, there is a

Re: [sympy] Polynomial Division with Symbolic Coefficients - Performance Issues

On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Chris Swierczewski wrote: > > There are a few things >> >> - The current implementation is a dense representation that is >> basically a list of lists of coefficients. Unfortunately, this is >> every inefficient for multivariate polynomials, so if you have a lot >>

Re: [sympy] Should __eq__ ever check for something more than structural equality?

At https://github.com/sympy/sympy/wiki/automatic-simplification I listed four rules of when automatic simplification should happen, and it sounds like this one breaks the third rule (not to mention probably the fourth). So to me, that's good enough reason to not do it. Aaron Meurer On Thu, May

Re: [sympy] defining hashable content so Integral(x,(x,1,2)) == Integral(y,(y,1,2))

On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 6:54 PM, Ronan Lamy wrote: > On 08/05/2013 00:28, Aaron Meurer wrote: > >> I agree. We should internally keep the same name. If Integral(y, (y, 0, >> 1)) magically turns into Integral(x, (x, 0, 1)), it will be very >> confusing. >> > > Er... you agree with what? Personally,

[sympy] GitHub issue tracking

GitHub has finally enabled a search functionality that doesn't require the issues to be enabled, so I have disabled the issue tracker for SymPy in GitHub. To search pull requests, just type the search in the top bar when on the pull requests page, and click "issues" on the right. I think they are

Re: [sympy] defining hashable content so Integral(x,(x,1,2)) == Integral(y,(y,1,2))

On 08/05/2013 00:28, Aaron Meurer wrote: I agree. We should internally keep the same name. If Integral(y, (y, 0, 1)) magically turns into Integral(x, (x, 0, 1)), it will be very confusing. Er... you agree with what? Personally, I find it very confusing that Integral(x, (x, 0, 1)) and Integral(

Re: [sympy] defining hashable content so Integral(x,(x,1,2)) == Integral(y,(y,1,2))

I agree. We should internally keep the same name. If Integral(y, (y, 0, 1)) magically turns into Integral(x, (x, 0, 1)), it will be very confusing. I just realized another instance of bound variables is RootOf and PurePoly. Both compare equal without considering bound variables (i.e., the same as

Re: [sympy] defining hashable content so Integral(x,(x,1,2)) == Integral(y,(y,1,2))

There is the need to have things printed as desired, too. The user should have control over what gets printed, printing an integral in x, y or u, for example. But if by default bound symbols were made canonical, one could xreplace the bound symbols with something else. -- You received this messag

Re: [sympy] lambda/function arg count

Yep -- works for 3.2 so nothing new is needed. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sympy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to

Re: [sympy] defining hashable content so Integral(x,(x,1,2)) == Integral(y,(y,1,2))

On 07/05/2013 01:49, Aaron Meurer wrote: There has already been some discussion on this at https://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2440 and https://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2442. To reiterate some of the arguments from there: - Regardless of what we do, we should be con

Re: [sympy] lambda/function arg count

By the way, if I remember correctly I already used this last year when I was writing the plotting module. The mechanics for coloring (which I like a lot, but regretfully are not frequently used yet) depend on the arity of the color function. On 7 May 2013 14:29, Stefan Krastanov wrote: > Why at a

Re: [sympy] lambda/function arg count

...and in 2.5 and 2.7 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sympy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sympy@googlegroups.com. V

Re: [sympy] lambda/function arg count

Why at all define a new function when inspect.getargspec works in all python versions (including 3.x)? (or maybe it does not?) On 7 May 2013 14:25, Chris Smith wrote: > This works in 2.5 > > def co_argcount(L): > try: # >= 2.7 > return L.func_code.co_argcount > except AttributeEr

Re: [sympy] lambda/function arg count

This works in 2.5 def co_argcount(L): try: # >= 2.7 return L.func_code.co_argcount except AttributeError: # 2.6 try: return L.__code__.co_argcount except AttributeError: # 2.5 #

Re: [sympy] lambda/function arg count

Thanks for the tip! Should we put this in compatible or wait until it's needed and hope that we remember that it is in the discussion list? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it

Re: [sympy] lambda/function arg count

There is also a routine that does something similar in the standard library import inspect args, varargs, varkw, defaults = inspect.getargspec(YOUR_FUNCTION) argcount = len(args) from http://stackoverflow.com/questions/990016/how-to-find-out-the-arity-of-a-method-in-python -- You received this

[sympy] lambda/function arg count

When dealing with a lambda/function, one might want to know how many arguments there were in the function. Here is a possible function that could go in compatibility: def co_argcount(L): try: # >= 2.7 return L.func_code.co_argcount except AttributeError: # 2.6 try: