> No worries. I appreciate you clarifying your viewpoint. You may not > like what you get if you don't give your opinion.
Thanks. > I am imcluding the f({x:pi,y:4}) syntax because Ondrej is right about > the limitations of the f(x=pi,y=4) syntax, and I think that this > method of substitution may prove to be a popular shorthand for subs. This is fine - I forgot that this case does solve the limitations of the f(x=10,y=4) syntax. >> + >>> f([(x,pi),(y,2)]) >> + 1 + 2*pi >> >> I am -1 on this. Try to forget about subs for a second. Most new >> users will want to use a function call syntax before they do a subs (I >> am thinking of my students in the physics department). This syntax is >> _very_ confusing for someone expecting function calls to behave like >> they do in math. > > I don't have a strong opinion on this and I can see how this may lead > to confusion for someone who is a casual user of sympy, so I have > taken your suggestion and removed the dictionary of pairs option in > the new patch I submitted to the thread. Thanks, I think this is an improvement. > Sometimes it is nice to have multiple ways to do something. I was > recently looking at using sympy with Mako to embed calculations in a > LaTeX document. The Mako syntax is fairly lightweight and easy to > used. For example, if you have the sympy expression f=x+y you can used > $(latex(f)) to print out the latex version of 'x+y'. I wanted to > things like ${latex(f) + '=' + latex(f({x=1,y=2}))}, unfortunately > Mako does not support brackets {} inside a ${...} expression. It was > convenient that the dictionary approach was supported. I personally > don't mind have a few ways to do something as long as they are clean > (easy to use and make sense), reasonably documented, and prove > convenient under common use cases. Not sure if the dictionary of pairs > fits that category, but it did happen to help in the case of Mako. Very, very true and this is always a careful balancing act. Especially because you can't always imagine the ways in which users will want to use your code. I guess only one other thing needs to be resolved: what do people think about my .bindings proposal? Obviously *I* think it (I an open to variants of it) is a good idea, but I really would like to hear from others. Also, once Lance finishes this patch, I don't mind doing the implementation of .bindings if there is support for it. Cheers, Brian PS - I am _really_ looking forward to having these things in sympy!!! > -Lance > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy-patches" group. To post to this group, send email to sympy-patches@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sympy-patches?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---