Dear Luisfe, > > By the error do you mean a NameError? There are no such global > functions defined in Sage.
Yes. I know it, and I suggest to make such global functions in sage in te same way that we have simplify. > I would rather use simplify_full and simplify_trig because there would > be easier to discover by a user writing simpl and pressing tab. Yes. Actually, both simplify_full and full_simplify are defined as methods. Moreover, I do not understand why the syntax *simpl*? that can be used in terminal does not works in the notebook. It should be very useful. (I suggested it about a year ago in this list.) > On the one hand it is true that for newcomers simplify_full(q) is a > more common sintax than q.simplify_full. On the other hand by the > object oriented nature of python you will never get rid of > class.function sintax entirely and once you get used, I rather tend to > use the second sintax more often. Yes, but for students (for instance, chemists, mechanical engineers,... ) that uses sage in the mathematical courses in the university, and that do not know anything about object oriented programing, it is easier with simplify_full(q). > So the question is if simplify_full is common enough to promote it to > have a top level function. I suggest it, and not only with simplify_full, but with many other similar functions. > > In fact the function is pretty easy > > def simplify_full(q): > try: > return q.simplify_full() > except AttributeError: > return q > Yes, it is easy. Yours, Juan Luis Varona -- 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 URL: http://www.sagemath.org
