On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 11:20 AM, Friedrich Hagedorn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 10:53:41AM +0200, Friedrich Hagedorn wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 04:02:54PM +0200, Ondrej Certik wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 3:48 PM, Kirill Smelkov > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 03:24:33PM +0200, Ondrej Certik wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 3:19 PM, Fredrik Johansson > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Why does it make sense to cover all equalities and inequalities > by > > > > > > this one operator Eq? The present syntax is to me like spelling > x*y+z > > > > > > as Add(Add(x,'*',y), '+', z) Doesn't it make more sense to define > > > > > > separate Eq, Ne, Lt, Le, Gt, Ge operators? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That's right. I was mainly concentrating on the == case. I think > "Eq, > > > > > Ne, Lt, Le, Gt, Ge" is even better solution. Plus I think it's also > > > > > useful to have something > > > > > like Op(a, b, "<="), so that one can quickly change this from <= to > < > > > > > or > etc., without having to think if > is Lt, or Le, etc. > > > > > > > > Right. Op -> Rel ? > > > > > > +1 > > > > So, I try it to change these things. > > Have you a script for automatic find and replace? > > Eq(*1,*2,*3) => if '==' in *2: Eq(*1,*3) > > Otherwise I have to do it for my own.
I just use recording in vim for these things. O. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group. To post to this group, send email to sympy@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?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
