I vote for the first option. If we are going to break compatibility for solve(), I'd rather just do it once, when we have a real solution that supports things like infinite solutions.
Aaron Meurer On Jul 2, 2012, at 1:09 PM, Chris Smith <smi...@gmail.com> wrote: > Anyone interested in randomization corrections...#1375 is ready to go. > And the fix for solve's issues is to either 1) for the tests, use > set=True or 2) make solve return sets and change the usages which > don't want this, changing solution[0] with solution.pop() or > `solution=solve(...)` with `solution=list(solve())`. The latter would > be easier as a grep job. > > -- > 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 > sympy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/sympy?hl=en. > -- 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 sympy+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sympy?hl=en.
