On Jul 15, 2009, at 4:58 AM, smichr wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jul 13, 3:30 am, "Aaron S. Meurer" wrote:
>> think that powsimp() could benefit from this? When I rewrote it
>> several weeks ago, I added a switch "combine" to control the two
>> different combining methods (see the docstring for more info
On Jul 13, 3:30 am, "Aaron S. Meurer" wrote:
> think that powsimp() could benefit from this? When I rewrote it
> several weeks ago, I added a switch "combine" to control the two
> different combining methods (see the docstring for more info). So
> basically, you can do combine='exp' to only c
I like this. It is basically what I couldn't figure out how to
reasonably do when I refactored expand. It would remove the need for
the dummy functions expand_log, expand_mul, and so on. Also, do you
think that powsimp() could benefit from this? When I rewrote it
several weeks ago, I a
