#11463: Add a Sage vs. Python FAQ
-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------
Reporter: hivert | Owner: mvngu
Type: enhancement | Status: needs_review
Priority: minor | Milestone: sage-4.7.1
Component: documentation | Keywords: FAQ
Work_issues: | Upstream: N/A
Reviewer: | Author: Florent Hivert
Merged: | Dependencies:
-----------------------------+----------------------------------------------
Comment(by robertwb):
It might be worth mentioning {{{sage -preparse}}}. Also, for most users
(especially those not trying to add to the library) it is much safer to
import what you need from {{{sage.all}}} it's just too easy to shoot
yourself in the foot otherwise. (Even for library code, it's better to
import PolynomialRing from sage.rings.all or sage.rings.polynomial.alll
than sage.rings.polynomial.polynomial_ring_constructor--it's safer, helps
reduce the spaghetti of imports that we currently have, and is more
future-proof.
--
Ticket URL: <http://trac.sagemath.org/sage_trac/ticket/11463#comment:3>
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.
