On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 12:05 AM, Golam Mortuza Hossain<gmhoss...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi, > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:45 AM, Jason Grout<jason-s...@creativetrax.com> > wrote: >>>> I think Sage is less consistent in syntax and less powerful than MMA in >>>> some things, like plotting and differential equations. >>> >>> Jason, its great that you brought out this issue about inconsistent syntax. >>> It would be really good if we make some efforts to make sage syntax >>> more consistent. >>> >>> For example, >>> >>> (1) integral and numerical_integral: >>> >>> integral( sin(x), x, 0, pi) is valid syntax but >>> numerical_integration(sin(x), x, 0, pi) is not. >> >> And plot(x, (x, 0, pi)) is valid, but integral(sin(x), (x, 0, pi)) is not. > > Are there any obvious issue in supporting this syntax (along with current > syntax) for integral and numerical_integral? > > I am currently working with symbolic integration and if there are no > objection in supporting the above syntax then I will add the support for it.
+1 You should definitely add support for that notation. Thanks! William --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
