On Sun, Mar 08, 2009 at 09:32:05PM +0100, Nicolas Thiéry wrote:
> > sage: SetPartitions
> > SetPartitions SetPartitionsIk SetPartitionsRk
> > SetPartitionsAk SetPartitionsPRk SetPartitionsSk
> > SetPartitionsBk SetPartitionsPk SetPartitionsTk
>
> Yes, as you suggest below, this indee
Hi!
Browsing back through my old e-mail, I just wanted to add a couple
notes.
On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 01:22:30AM -0800, Craig Citro wrote:
>
> > That said, I'm not for some massive reorganization of
> > the current global namespace, since that wold break a huge amount of
> > existing co
On Tue, 02 Dec 2008 at 01:22AM -0800, Craig Citro wrote:
> Second: I wonder if the constructors for some of the combinatorics
> functions couldn't be given a common interface. For instance:
>
> sage: SetPartitions
> SetPartitions SetPartitionsIk SetPartitionsRk
> SetPartitionsAk SetPartiti
+1 on craig, especially the 3th point.
ow I forgot to mention before, I also think that a massive
reorganization would be a bad thing to do since this would be big load
of work, and there are much better things that could get done in that
time. But motivating people to have the newly added stuff
> That said, I'm not for some massive reorganization of
> the current global namespace, since that wold break a huge amount of
> existing code -- both in Sage and out (e.g., the examples at
> wiki.sagemath.org/interact).
>
I definitely agree that reorganizing and/or massively reducing the
global
Are there some general guidelines on how to use the namespaces in
sage. Like: which function's should be accesible from which namespace
(global v.s. local and maybe some hierachical structure in the local
namespace).
I think some guidelines on this would improve the userfriendliness of
sage a big
> I really like
>
> sage: finance.[tab]
>
> I don't like explicitly forcing people to import stuff before they can use it
> at all. Thus I much prefer
>
> $ sage
>
> sage: finance.[tab]
>
> and I don't like
>
> $ sage
> ...
> sage: import sage.finance as finance
> sage: finace.[tab]
>
>
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 9:22 AM, Franco Saliola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Michael Abshoff wrote in the comments to trac ticket #4653:
>
>> one issue that might be worth considering now before merging is
>> "name space pollution", i.e. there was some discussion at SD 11
>> that it would be bet