> For what it's worth, I am +1 on adding these common functions as methods. It > is easier than ^Asimplify(^E), and the parentheses are nicer. Frankly, the > ability to do f(x).diff(x) is one of my favorite features of sympy.
I am also +1. The *most annoying* aspect of sympy right now is that only *some* things are methods and others are functions. To the new user the choices seem completely arbitrary and it makes using/learning sympy a pain. In my opinion, it is too late to go back now. When something makes sense to be a method and a function is should be. > Wasn't the point of splitting Basic so that we could put this bloating crap > in the one class and have only the essentials in the other? In other words, > the one level isn't so much at the "core" as the other. > > Here's an interesting question: Matrix.simplify() simplifies in place. > Should Basic.simplify() do the same? No, I do think that Basic.simplify should just call the global. If subclasses need to override it (containers like Matrix will probably want to do it inplace). Possibly better would be to make inplace=False a keyword argument of simplify. NOTE: I think the question of how a function like simplify is implemented is a different question than how users call it. The current discussion only pertains to how users call it. THE OTHER ISSUE: Personally, I think all sympy classes should be able to declare a _simplify_ method that the global simplify might use to simplify the logic. Something like what we have in the printers. Otherwise it is very difficult to implement new sympy types that know how to simplify themselves - an issue that I am running into in the new quantum stuff I am doing. Also, this is the essence of object oriented excapsulation: put all the logic pertaining to the class *in* the class. But, as our experience with printerss has shown it is also useful to be able to put some logic of a certain type (printing, refine, simplify) in a location outside of Basic. In many ways, it looks like we need both. a side question: My understanding of Mathematica's simplification algorithm is that it is based on rules. Has anyone looked into something like this for sympy? Cheers, Brian -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group. To post to this group, send email to sy...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sympy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sympy?hl=en.
