On May 21, 2007, at 10:00 PM, Nick Alexander wrote: > "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> On May 21, 7:24 pm, Yi Qiang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> On May 21, 2007, at 7:18 PM, Brian Harris wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Fair enough. A previous discussion led me to believe the goal >>>> was for >>>> more transparent rings. Have you considered supporting >>>> something like >>>> the following? >>> >>>> cos(3).toreal() > > Hmm.. there could be cos, cosdeg, sin, sindeg, etc, which are the > expected symbolic functions. Then RR(cosdeg(180)) = -1, etc. > > Is that a bad idea?
Global namespace pollution? Would the (implicit) target audience of degree-based trig know to look for sindeg, etc.? Would it work like sage: cosdeg(45) cos(pi/4) It's much better than a global state tough. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
