On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Brian Granger <ellisonbg....@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Ondrej Certik <ond...@certik.cz> wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 11:11 AM, Tim Lahey <tim.la...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 2:04 PM, Brian Granger <ellisonbg....@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> I propose renaming .evalf() -> .N(). >>> >>> -1. First, it would break existing code. Second, I see the point in >>> having both. First, >>> evalf is what Maple calls it while N is what Mathematica calls it. So, >>> it's handy for >>> people switching. >>> >>> Since I'm a Maple user, I'd argue for evalf replacing N if that was >>> the case. However, >>> I think eliminating one is a bad idea. >> >> SymPy currently has both .evalf() and .n() methods. We also have a N() >> global function. It's kind of a mess, I agree. > > Coming from Mathematica, evalf is confusing for me. But, if maple > users are familiar with evalf I think it makes sense to keep it. But > then, let simply also make .N a method so it is consistent.
Sage also only has the .n() method and a N() function. So should we have all .evalf(), .n() and .N() methods? If someone expects to have .N() too, we can do that (Sage doesn't have it and no one seems to complain though). Ondrej -- 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.
