On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 00:08:23 -0800, Robert Bradshaw
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> If we wanted, we could always add that later on top of what I
>> proposed.
>> It would just be:
>>
>> f = (sin(x)*cos(x+y+3)).function(x,y)
>>
>> or
>>
>> dummy = sin(x*) * cos(x+y+3)
>> f = dummy.function(x,y)
>>
>> Either might be doable with the preprocessor, though I shudder...
> I think either are very doable via the preprocessor, but we can hold
> off for now.
For fun, I'll think a little about that for a second, since it will
be good for Bobby to put how this would work in the SEP.
For example, we want to transform
f(x,y) = sin(x)*cos(x+y+3)
into
f = (sin(x)*cos(x+y+3)).function(x,y)
Possible logic to do this. If a statement (i.e., between ;'s
or newlines) contains an equal sign and there is an open
parenthesis to the left of the equals since, do this
transformation:
X(y) = z
gets replaced by
X = z.function(y)
where here X, y, and z are (nearly) arbitrary strings.
I think this is reasonable since in Python "if a statement (i.e.,
between ;'s or newlines) contains an equal sign and there is an open
parenthesis to the left of the equals sign", then is a *syntax error*.
We could possible also do
var(y); X=z.function(y)
where var(y) would define all formal indeterminates defined by the
string y and inject them into the interpreter's scope.
- 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/
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
