On Tue, Mar 30, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Brian Granger <ellisonbg....@gmail.com> wrote: > Robert, > >>> 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). >> >> FWIW, I think this kind of consistency is overrated. What looks nice >> as a method doesn't always look nice as a function. Users coming from >> other languages expect all kinds of unreasonable things. > > For folks like you or I I somewhat agree. As long as I can tab > complete I can adapt and adjust. But for my students whose only > computing experience is their iPhone and Internet explorer, this type > of thing does matter. > > Also, while it may be overrated, there is no *harm* in making it more > consistent.
When adding these duplicate methods, we should also copy the docstring automatically, so that it is well documented at one place and the other methods just copy it somehow. 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.
