On 5/21/07, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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.
It was never a question of global state. Sorry if I made it seem that way. If we were to do it (which still I disfavor), it might look something like sage: cos(45, units=="degrees") 1/sqrt(2) ~Bobby -- Bobby Moretti [EMAIL PROTECTED] --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
