Updates:
Labels: NeedsReview asmeurer
Comment #7 on issue 2307 by asmeurer: Duplicate methods: as_coeff_mul and
as_coeff_Mul
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=2307
OK. See https://github.com/sympy/sympy/pull/299.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed
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 #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 message
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()
100
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 a.
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 because
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 wa
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 us
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:
>>> (3*y*
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
a
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 #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-patche
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 #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
as_coeff_Cap
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
(becau
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)
17 matches
Mail list logo
