#8734: make sage variables unique in maxima
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Reporter: jason | Owner: jason
Type: defect | Status: needs_review
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-6.3
Component: interfaces | Resolution:
Keywords: | Merged in:
Authors: Jason Grout, Ralf | Reviewers: Volker Braun, Paul
Stephan | Zimmerman, Karl-Dieter Crisman
Report Upstream: N/A | Work issues:
Branch: | Commit:
u/rws/ticket/8734-1 | 793bb058a06b3dfb31c6029f6c30960d1dee8cc7
Dependencies: | Stopgaps:
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Comment (by kcrisman):
Okay, I have a few questions about
[http://git.sagemath.org/sage.git/diff/src/sage/calculus/desolvers.py?id=610fb79bfc9fde84dea1200fdfcd4bceb25bd77f
the ode changes]. I assume the answer to all of them is "it would have
been even messier any other way", but I just wanted to check.
* In some of the sanitizing functions, you replace things like
`'_SAGE_VAR_f` with `f`, but in others you only replace the independent
variable that way. Is that because of specific examples that didn't work,
or was the context different, or... ?
* I'm wondering whether the Sage translation would have just taken care
of this in `soln.sage()`, but I guess it didn't. Was there any possible
change to the translation that could have done this, rather than getting
into the ode wrapper code directly (which makes it harder to read)? For
instance, in `desolve_laplace` we convert the `de` to Maxima (presumably
adding `SAGE_VAR`, add another `SAGE_VAR` from `f(x)` to `f(_SAGE_VAR_x)`
(I think), and then proceed to remove only the `SAGE_VAR` from the
''de''pendent variable. So... that part isn't taken care of by the
translation, but the independent variable still somehow is translated back
correctly, but not forward within `de0=de._maxima_()`? Yet in the `rk4`
types this isn't a problem, apparently.
* We should probably just remove `desolve_system_strings`, see #8132
where it was first said to be obsolete, and it hasn't been in the global
namespace since before 2010. That is pretty much equivalent to a
deprecation to me. However, we should keep any non-overlapping examples -
so maybe removal should be another ticket...
But it seems good, assuming I didn't miss any tests that fail...
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/8734#comment:54>
Sage <http://www.sagemath.org>
Sage: Creating a Viable Open Source Alternative to Magma, Maple, Mathematica,
and MATLAB
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-trac" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-trac.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
