Chris Seberino wrote: > > > On Mar 31, 11:06 am, Jason Grout <[email protected]> wrote: >> Oh, right. Duh. I should have seen that. > > Since you nor I did see that, should we ask if there is a way to unify > the syntax for symbolic expressions and python functions to make > plotting more "idiot proof" so to speak? Or maybe there is a good > reason not to that I'm missing? >
Good point. I don't think there's an easy way to do that. The confusion was about a rather fundamental thing in the python language (indeed, any language) about how a function works. I don't think there would be any clear way to make an arbitrary python function take a symbolic object and produce meaningful output in a way that would consistently make sense to plot. The function is called and evaluated before plot ever sees it; plot has no idea that you called a function, rather than just passing whatever the function output. Yes, I suppose you could do something with the preparser, but my intuition is that that is asking for trouble. On the other hand, I can correct the big lack of sleep that I'm blaming for my embarrassing oversight :). Thanks, 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-support URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
