On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 11:09:04 -0800, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Yeah, that was my thought, too. If we make an object, similar to a > ring, representative of a function space, then if you call a function on > an indeterminant member of this space, you get back a function; a member > of the space. > > Example: > > sage: F.<x> = FunctionSpace(domain = RR, range = RR) > sage: f = sin(x) > sage: g = cos(x) > sage: f+g > sin(x) + cos(x) > sage: f(g) > sin(cos(x)) > sage: (f+g)(0) > 1 > sage: (f(g)).diff(x) > cos(cos(x))*(-sin(x))
Again, at this point I just don't see a compelling reason to so dramatically depart from what Maple/Mathematica/Maxima, etc. do. They all have a notion of substition of a variable for evaluating symbolic functions, and separately a notion like "def" or "lambda". Mixing these up seems to me to be ignoring the lessons learned by decades of research and testing of actual users of this sort of software. -- William --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
