Le dimanche 09 août 2009 à 16:34 -0700, Luke a écrit :
> >
> > * This line suggests that it would be helpful to create an 'inverse'
> > property - less work is needed to create this inverse than for a generic
> > Pow instance.
>
> Could you elaborate on what you mean here? Do you mean an inverse
> property to Pow instances which have a integer exponent? Perhaps
> 'reciprocal' instead of 'inverse'?
Yes, I guess 'reciprocal' is better. I mean a class property defined for
all instances that would look like:
@property
def reciprocal(self):
if self.exp == -1:
return self.base
else:
return Basic.__new__(self.__class__, self.base, -self.exp)
>
> > *I don't see the point of the third test: it's only testing that (x
> > +y)**2*(x+y)**-4 == (x+y)**-2 which isn't related to expand.
>
> Yes, you are right, it isn't testing expand but I guess it probably
> doesn't hurt to keep it in either.
No, it doesn't hurt much, but each unneeded test makes running the full
test suite a tiny bit more painful.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
sympy-patches+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/sympy-patches?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
