Comment #30 on issue 1823 by asmeurer: integral.atoms(Symbol) should
introspect
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1823
Do we even need "bound_symbols"? I was only suggesting it as a symmetry,
but I don't know if it's necessarily as important as "free_symbols".
Anyway, in
> Do we even need "bound_symbols"?
I think it can be useful for checking what can be done with an
expression, for example if it is desired to manipulate an expression
like this:
n*Sum(x**n, (n, 0, oo)) = n*Sum(x**m, (m, 0, oo)) = Sum(n*x**m,
(m, 0, oo))
If a symbol is present in both free an
> Do we even need "bound_symbols"?
I think it can be useful for checking what can be done with an
expression, for example if it is desired to manipulate an expression
like this:
n*Sum(x**n, (n, 0, oo)) = n*Sum(x**m, (m, 0, oo)) = Sum(n*x**m,
(m, 0, oo))
If a symbol is present in both free an
Comment #31 on issue 1823 by smi...@gmail.com: integral.atoms(Symbol)
should introspect
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1823
bound_symbols has been removed and the commit "free_symbols..." is ready
for review again.
[ https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/44 ]
--
You receiv
Comment #32 on issue 1823 by smi...@gmail.com: integral.atoms(Symbol)
should introspect
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1823
I feel pretty strongly that we should make the symbols method do what
free_symbols is doing and drop the free_symbols method before it even gets
add
