Updates:
Labels: -NeedsReview NeedsBetterPatch
Comment #2 on issue 1963 by asmeurer: changes to core/power
http://code.google.com/p/sympy/issues/detail?id=1963
I'm not particularly fond of
eq=eqn(npos, dpos, pow);assert eq.is_Pow and eq.as_numer_denom() ==
(npos**pow, dpos**pow)
eq=eqn(npos, dneg, pow);assert eq.is_Pow and eq.as_numer_denom() == (eq, 1)
eq=eqn(nneg, dpos, pow);assert eq.is_Pow and eq.as_numer_denom() ==
(nneg**pow, dpos**pow)
eq=eqn(nneg, dneg, pow);assert eq.is_Pow and eq.as_numer_denom() == (eq, 1)
I prefer
eq = eqn(npos, dpos, pow)
assert eq.is_Pow and eq.as_numer_denom() == (npos**pow, dpos**pow)
eq = eqn(npos, dneg, pow)
assert eq.is_Pow and eq.as_numer_denom() == (eq, 1)
eq = eqn(nneg, dpos, pow)
assert eq.is_Pow and eq.as_numer_denom() == (nneg**pow, dpos**pow)
eq = eqn(nneg, dneg, pow)
assert eq.is_Pow and eq.as_numer_denom() == (eq, 1)
or
eq1 = eqn(npos, dpos, pow)
eq2 = eqn(npos, dneg, pow)
eq3 = eqn(nneg, dpos, pow)
eq4 = eqn(nneg, dneg, pow)
assert eq1.is_Pow and eq1.as_numer_denom() == (npos**pow, dpos**pow)
assert eq2.is_Pow and eq2.as_numer_denom() == (eq2, 1)
assert eq3.is_Pow and eq3.as_numer_denom() == (nneg**pow, dpos**pow)
assert eq4.is_Pow and eq4.as_numer_denom() == (eq4, 1)
Either way, there should be a space on either side of =.
As far as the changes go, can you explain why (-1/(2 - 3**(1/2)))**(-2*any)
behaves different than (-1/(1 - 3**(1/2)))**(-2*any)?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy-issues" group.
To post to this group, send email to sympy-iss...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
sympy-issues+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sympy-issues?hl=en.
