Vinzent Steinberg wrote: > On 22 Apr., 16:53, "Chris Smith" <[email protected]> wrote: >> I don't think we should get hung up on the fact that a set of >> solutions should be returned as a literal set. How that set gets >> represented/presented is just an interface issue. I don't see >> anything wrong with presenting the set as elements in a list. The >> list representation also allows for unambiguous, non-redundant >> representation of the symbols and their values. And look at how easy >> it is to make a replacement dictionary from a list as compared to a >> dictionary...and I challenge anyone to try do the same with a set in >> as compact a fashion: > >> h[4] >>> l=[(x,y),(1,2),(3,4)] > > You could use as well set([...]) here. There is no reason IMHO to use > a list.
In the list, that is a literal x and y -- symbols. That's what makes the list less noisy: you get the symbols once, right at the start, and then all the solutions. The dictionary is just too busy with redundant symbols. Easy to use, hard to look at. /c -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sympy" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. 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.
