Updates:
Status: Fixed
Comment #9 on issue 1675 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: Inconsistent behaviour of
atoms()
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1675
The original issue has been fixed, see issue 2007.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Comment #8 on issue 1675 by and...@hotmail.com: Inconsistent behaviour of
atoms()
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1675
Thanks for your help - I found the module / functions and your suggested
method is
working well.
Apologies for the confusion - I looked for iterables at
Comment #6 on issue 1675 by asmeurer: Inconsistent behaviour of atoms()
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1675
You are confused. iterables is a module in SymPy (see
sympy/utilities/iterables.py). He did a from sympy import
* so that iterables was in the global namespace.
--
Comment #7 on issue 1675 by smichr: Inconsistent behaviour of atoms()
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1675
From sympy import * imports (I believe) everything that is in sympy's
__init__.py.
If you look in there, you will see the line from utilities import * which
means
that
Comment #4 on issue 1675 by smichr: Inconsistent behaviour of atoms()
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1675
This is an interesting question. You might try a tree traversal, walking
through the
nodes of the expression and seeing if each node is of the type you are
interested
Status: New
Owner:
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-Medium
New issue 1675 by and...@hotmail.com: Inconsistent behaviour of atoms()
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1675
Just a little issue:
Based on the behaviour of example 1, I would expect the output of
Comment #1 on issue 1675 by smichr: Inconsistent behaviour of atoms()
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1675
atoms() scans an expression non-recursively. In the first example you give,
two types
of atoms are present at the same level in the expression so you get both.
In order
Comment #2 on issue 1675 by and...@hotmail.com: Inconsistent behaviour of
atoms()
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1675
OK - understood. Thanks for your reply.
But then why is 'x' in the set found by 'w.atoms()', but 'f(x)' not in this
set? And
why is 'x' in the set found
Comment #3 on issue 1675 by and...@hotmail.com: Inconsistent behaviour of
atoms()
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1675
Sorry - ignore my last post! Having read the docstring of the new patch, I
understand
a bit more
1) Without the argument 'Function' in the call to
