Fredrik Johansson wrote: > On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Golam Mortuza > Hossain<[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I am preparing patches that will resolve >> >> http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/6465 >> >> and will also move symbolic integration as a sub-class >> of SFunction into new symbolics. >> >> >> Currently, Sage allows omitting variable of integration for convenience. >> However, this convenience comes at a hefty price by making Sage >> syntax highly inconsistent. On top of this, it mask genuine typing error >> as a valid input. >> >> For example: "integrate(f(x), x, a, )" is treated as "integrate(f(x), x, x, >> a)" >> where user may have wanted to type "integrate(f(x), x, a, b)" but >> missed the "b". >> >> Given we are moving to a new settings, I am proposing that we make >> integration syntax bit stricter and consistent now. In particular, we allow >> only >> following inputs as valid >> >> (1) integrate( f(x), x) >> (2) integrate( f(x), (x,a,b) ) >> (3) integrate( f(x), x, a, b) > > I suggest getting rid of (3) if only to support the following syntax > for multiple integrals without ambiguity: > > integrate(f(x,y,z), (x,a,b), (y,c,d), (z,e,f)) >
Technically, that's unambiguous now, as it's easy to tell the difference between a tuple (x, a, b) and a number or symbolic variable. However, I think you're right that it is confusing to students to have the above notation and (3). Jason --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send an email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
