Comment #21 on issue 2307 by matt...@gmail.com: Duplicate methods:
as_coeff_mul and as_coeff_Mul
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2307
btw. One more place where as_coeff_Capital_letter is useful is new
combsimp(), but as we don't have as_coeff_Add and future of
Comment #22 on issue 2307 by asmeurer: Duplicate methods: as_coeff_mul and
as_coeff_Mul
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2307
I thing we should either keep both or remove as_coeff_lowercase and just
require a call to .args in the second argument of as_coeff_Uppercase
Comment #23 on issue 2307 by smi...@gmail.com: Duplicate methods:
as_coeff_mul and as_coeff_Mul
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2307
It's a headache either way to do what the other is doing:
to miimic as_coeff_mul()
c, m = expr.as_coeff_Mul()
margs = Mul.make_args(m)
Comment #20 on issue 2307 by smi...@gmail.com: Duplicate methods:
as_coeff_mul and as_coeff_Mul
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2307
as_coeff_mul could be .rat_mulargs and as_coeff_add could be .rat_addargs.
This would make it clear that you are getting a Rational, not slot
Comment #19 on issue 2307 by asmeurer: Duplicate methods: as_coeff_mul and
as_coeff_Mul
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2307
By the way, I'm starting to think we should just keep both.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
sympy-issues
Updates:
Labels: -NeedsBetterPatch -asmeurer NeedsReview smichr
Comment #16 on issue 2307 by asmeurer: Duplicate methods: as_coeff_mul and
as_coeff_Mul
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2307
See https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/313 for Chris's removal branch.
--
You
Comment #17 on issue 2307 by asmeurer: Duplicate methods: as_coeff_mul and
as_coeff_Mul
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2307
See https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/313 for Chris's removal branch.
Chris, Mateusz, others: which option do you think would be the cleanest? I
Issue 2307: Duplicate methods: as_coeff_mul and as_coeff_Mul
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2307
This issue is now blocking issue 2308.
See http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2308
--
You received this message because you are listed in the owner
or CC fields of this
Comment #13 on issue 2307 by matt...@gmail.com: Duplicate methods:
as_coeff_mul and as_coeff_Mul
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2307
I got a little lost in the discussion about as_coeff_Mul() due to my recent
duties, but let me comment on a few things. If the test in #11
Comment #14 on issue 2307 by smi...@gmail.com: Duplicate methods:
as_coeff_mul and as_coeff_Mul
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2307
The test was just testing the ability to efficiently get the coefficient.
If you have to do something with the rest of the expression, then
Comment #15 on issue 2307 by smi...@gmail.com: Duplicate methods:
as_coeff_mul and as_coeff_Mul
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2307
I forget that as_coeff_foo already has a built-in mechanism to consider
what is the dependent part and what is the coeff part:
Updates:
Labels: -NeedsReview NeedsBetterPatch
Comment #12 on issue 2307 by asmeurer: Duplicate methods: as_coeff_mul and
as_coeff_Mul
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2307
Chris has a better branch than mine. See the pull request.
--
You received this message
Comment #9 on issue 2307 by smi...@gmail.com: Duplicate methods:
as_coeff_mul and as_coeff_Mul
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2307
What happens to the time of as_coeff_mul for the test in comment 2 after
making the changes of the pull request?
--
You received this
Comment #10 on issue 2307 by asmeurer: Duplicate methods: as_coeff_mul and
as_coeff_Mul
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2307
I'm not entirely sure how comparable this is with my previous timings, but
here it is:
in as_coeff_mul-remove:
In [2]: %timeit a.as_coeff_mul()
Comment #11 on issue 2307 by asmeurer: Duplicate methods: as_coeff_mul and
as_coeff_Mul
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2307
The answer is, it isn't comparable. I just reran it in master and got:
In [1]: a = 3*Mul(*[Symbol('x%d' % i) for i in range(100)])
In [2]: %timeit
Comment #8 on issue 2307 by smi...@gmail.com: Duplicate methods:
as_coeff_mul and as_coeff_Mul
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2307
if eq.is_Mul:
c, rest = eq.as_twoterms()
else:
c, rest = eq, S.One
if c.is_Number:
return c, rest
return
Comment #6 on issue 2307 by asmeurer: Duplicate methods: as_coeff_mul and
as_coeff_Mul
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2307
Well, that was pretty obvious, wasn't it. I guess I just wasn't thinking
very straight yesterday.
Actually, since you can only have one Number
Comment #2 on issue 2307 by asmeurer: Duplicate methods: as_coeff_mul and
as_coeff_Mul
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2307
as_coeff_mul() is used all over the place. as_coeff_Mul() is only used in
a few places.
The docstring of as_coeff_Mul only says that it is there to
Updates:
Cc: smi...@gmail.com
Comment #3 on issue 2307 by asmeurer: Duplicate methods: as_coeff_mul and
as_coeff_Mul
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2307
There's a difference with how the handle Real coefficients:
In [1]: (4.0*x).as_coeff_mul()
Out[1]: (1, (4.0, x))
Comment #4 on issue 2307 by asmeurer: Duplicate methods: as_coeff_mul and
as_coeff_Mul
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2307
If you want to see it, see
https://github.com/asmeurer/sympy/tree/as_coeff_Mul-remove. I have done
everything for the merge (I converted
Status: Accepted
Owner: ronan.l...@gmail.com
Labels: Type-Defect Priority-High Milestone-Release0.7.0
New issue 2307 by ronan.l...@gmail.com: Duplicate methods: as_coeff_mul and
as_coeff_Mul
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2307
Expr.as_coeff_mul and Expr.as_coeff_Mul do
21 matches
Mail list logo
