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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---