[email protected] wrote: > Carl > > Mathematica seems to have been successful with this approach. I'm > curious what were the reasons for its disapproval. Perhaps it was > feared it was error prone?
Along with the other reasons people are giving, it may be helpful to remember that it is may be less error-prone in MMA. For example, parentheses in Sage can denote function calling as well as grouping, while they only denote grouping in MMA. With implicit multiplication, func (x) and func(x) are both valid in Sage, but have different meanings. In MMA, they both are multiplication, like you'd expect from math. I agree that we should not diverge from python in this. One of the biggest selling points for me is that students are really learning python, which is a much more widely-used skill than learning a piece of math software. Also, I agree that we should be explicit rather than implicit (to quote from the "zen" of python). Jason --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
