Dear Jason,
On Dec 3, 7:54 pm, Jason Grout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Wow, Sage will redefine symbols that are already existing to accommodate
> what should be a dummy variable? This looks seriously wrong and looks
> like it could really mess things up.
I don't think so. Admittedly I don't like that x is pre-defined, but
here it is something else.
There are Sage constructions which define various things in one line.
For example,
sage: R.<z>=QQ[]
both defines R *and* z (the latter of type Polynomial_rational_dense).
Similarly, doing
sage: R(z)=sin(z)
both defines R *and* z (the latter of type SymbolicVariable).
And note that even the notation is consistent: In both examples, you
have two things on the left side of the assignment (R and z) -- and
both things get a (new) assignment.
Yours,
Simon
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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-support
URLs: http://www.sagemath.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
