On Jun 5, 2009, at 8:39 AM, Burcin Erocal wrote: > > Hi Golam, > > On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 09:37:07 -0300 > Golam Mortuza Hossain <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> It seems, recent switch to new symbolics has caused several >> typesetting regressions in sage-4.0 (compared 3.4.*). > > Some of these are mentioned here: > > http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6211 > > It would be great if you can post your comments on the ticket as well. > >> Here are the list of regressions which I have encountered so far. >> >> (1) Typesetting of sec(x), csc(x), cot(x) are broken. It puts an >> extra "\mbox" around them unlike for sin, cos, tan. >> >> >> (2) Typesetting for "integral" no longer works > > I plan to look at these over the weekend as part of an attempt to wrap > my head around how SFunction/PrimitiveFunction etc. works in the new > symbolics. It might take Mike much less time to fix them, but I guess > he's busy with release management stuff. > >> (3) symbolic "diff" now returns a rather incomprehensible output >> ------- >> f(x) = function('f',x) >> diff(f(x),x) >> D[0](f)(x) >> ------- >> What does that '0' really means? Typeset version also looks similar. > > This is also the notation used by Maple, we inherited it from GiNaC. > Here is some explanation from the Maple manual: > > http://www.maplesoft.com/support/help/view.aspx?path=D > > Indexes in Sage start from 0, not 1. I think this is the only > difference between Maple and Sage.
I can see how this can be more powerful, but I have to admit I'm not a fan of this compared to the standard df/dx notation. - Robert --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
