#7763: make nintegrate/nintegral top-level functions
-----------------------------------+----------------------------------------
Reporter: jason | Owner: burcin
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_work
Priority: major | Milestone: sage-4.6.2
Component: calculus | Keywords:
Author: Gagan Sekhon | Upstream: N/A
Reviewer: Karl-Dieter Crisman | Merged:
Work_issues: |
-----------------------------------+----------------------------------------
Changes (by kcrisman):
* keywords: beginner =>
* status: needs_review => needs_work
Comment:
Again, a good start at this!
Unfortunately, there are now MANY small issues that need to be cleared up
before testing and positive review can occur. I don't see any of these as
insurmountable. However, I'm definitely removing the 'beginner' tag,
given that this has become a more subtle ticket.
First, there are still a fair number of typos, English issues like `every
floating point evaluation of return` (which was in the original, not
introduced by the author of the patch, but should be fixed), etc. There
should be better formatting (`Examples::` should be capitalized, for
example), and hopefully links to the functions put in - see the plotting
functions, especially plot.py, for examples of how to do that in Sphinx.
> I would caution that for annoying reasons we like to have the lines in
the documentation be fairly short; see some of the other calculus or
plotting files for examples of about how many characters (80? 84?) are
appropriate. (Otherwise it looks really bad in command line.) So any
updates should fix that.
This comment still applies.
Another interesting thing is the use of `*args` and `**kwds`. Really, we
expect only a few cases of args, and only one keyword. I think the syntax
for this should be like for symbolic integrals, e.g.
`f.integrate(algorithm="mathematica_free")` - that is to say, maybe it
should be `algorithm` instead of `alg`. Maybe even specifically check the
args? I don't know.
The private function `_numerical_integral` needs documentation.
{{{
#This is so the old numerical_integral will still work
}}}
is not quite accurate, as it's doing more than that :)
I'm not sure whether the Mma or sympy ones actually will return numerical
values. Also, one should doctest all those options.
What is the idea with calling the other numerical integral (from Maxima)
`_nintegral_sym`, since it's not symbolic? Maybe I'm missing something.
I think you now have `Note that in exotic cases` twice in the same
docstring - is that correct?
Anyway, all doable things, and the final produce will be quite valuable.
(As a final comment, it would be worth seeing whether the issues at
[http://ask.sagemath.org/question/95/numerical-integration-in-a-function
this discussion] are solved with this ticket. I don't believe so - since
these integrals aren't made symbolic - but it's worth checking.)
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/7763#comment:19>
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 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-trac?hl=en.
