I keep running into the following need and wonder if we should do
something about it.
Whenever I want to run a method over the arguments of an expression
(essential doing a deep processing of an expression) I have to set up
the following filter:
if expr is None: # because integrals use None as
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 6:51 PM, smichr wrote:
> I keep running into the following need and wonder if we should do
> something about it.
>
> Whenever I want to run a method over the arguments of an expression
> (essential doing a deep processing of an expression) I have to set up
> the following f
So, either everything should have Basic args, which means no None, tuples,
etc., or we could have some kind of helper method in Basic that returns a list
of only the symbolic arguments. For the second one, you would modify the list
with what you want, and then send it back to the same object th
Well, I think that everything should have Basic args. There's a comment
in the code somewhere to that effect and that's an invariant we should
respect scrupulously, together with expr.func(*expr.args) == expr.
tuples should be replaced with a Tuple type (SymTuple in secondquant.py
is basically wh
I do agree. Two questions:
1. Will this affect performance, using SymTuple instead of tuple, since we use
args to hash objects? It probably won't, but I guess we should benchmark it to
make sure.
2. What would you use to replace the use of None in Integral, as in
Integral(f(x), (x, None, 1))
Le dimanche 28 mars 2010 à 20:50 -0600, Aaron S. Meurer a écrit :
> I do agree. Two questions:
>
> 1. Will this affect performance, using SymTuple instead of tuple, since we
> use args to hash objects?
> It probably won't, but I guess we should benchmark it to make sure.
Probably not. Note th
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Ronan Lamy wrote:
> Le dimanche 28 mars 2010 à 20:50 -0600, Aaron S. Meurer a écrit :
>> I do agree. Two questions:
>>
>> 1. Will this affect performance, using SymTuple instead of tuple, since we
>> use args to hash objects?
>> It probably won't, but I guess we
The None is essentially inert substitution, so maybe it should work like
Integral(f(x), x)(y). I'd like to get the same syntax working for
f(x).diff(x)(y) to mean f'(y) (the derivative of f evaluated at y) as per issue
1620.
By the way, I implemented this to allow general case solutions from
On Sun, Mar 28, 2010 at 9:59 PM, Aaron S. Meurer wrote:
> The None is essentially inert substitution, so maybe it should work like
> Integral(f(x), x)(y). I'd like to get the same syntax working for
> f(x).diff(x)(y) to mean f'(y) (the derivative of f evaluated at y) as per
> issue 1620.
>
> B
It's based on Maple's intat() function, which is what it's dsolve() returns in
these cases. See
http://www.maplesoft.com/support/help/Maple/view.aspx?path=intat&term=intat.
I think I preferred this over Integral(f(x), (x, a, y)) because if the user
eventually substitutes f(x) for something th
Le dimanche 28 mars 2010 à 22:59 -0600, Aaron S. Meurer a écrit :
> The None is essentially inert substitution, so maybe it should work like
> Integral(f(x), x)(y).
> I'd like to get the same syntax working for f(x).diff(x)(y) to mean f'(y)
> (the derivative of f
> evaluated at y) as per issue
11 matches
Mail list logo
