2020-11-29 21:23:36 UTC, Guillermo:
>
> I wonder what would be wrong with replacing '!' → '.factorial()'
Interesting idea. Just be careful with `!=` of course.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-support" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and
Hi Nils.
I agree with you, but at the same time I wonder what would be wrong with
replacing
'!' → '.factorial()'
Best regards,
Guillermo
On Sun, 29 Nov 2020 at 22:02, Nils Bruin wrote:
> With the current regexp-based rewriting we'd need a pattern of the kind
> '!' -> 'factorial( are doing an
Hi Nils,
fair enough. I didn't deeply think about it, my naive impression was
that what the preparser does to
R. = QQ[]
is at least as complicated as dealing with the exclamation mark. But
I guess you're right: It isn't.
Best regards,
Simon
On 2020-11-29, Nils Bruin wrote:
> With the current
With the current regexp-based rewriting we'd need a pattern of the kind
'!' -> 'factorial( '**" but that's very
basic and doesn't need any context. To change an implicit unary postfix
operator to an explicitly parenthesized prefix operator need almost
complete parsing. Had the factorial been
On Nov 29, Simon King wrote:
Hi Reimundo,
On 2020-11-29, 'Reimundo Heluani' via sage-support
wrote:
Well, in the Noetherian case this works fine. The setup I need is a
non-noetherian algebra: a polynomial differential algebra, that is polynomials
in x_1,...,x_n and all of their formal
On 2020-11-29, Simon King wrote:
> Hi Emmanuel,
>
> On 2020-10-28, Emmanuel Charpentier wrote:
>> Nope. This syntactic sugar is provided by `Maxima`'s and `Mathematica`'s
>> readers, but not by Sage preparser.
>
> Would it be nice (and easy) to have in Sage? What prevents the preparser
> from
Hi Reimundo,
On 2020-11-29, 'Reimundo Heluani' via sage-support
wrote:
> Well, in the Noetherian case this works fine. The setup I need is a
> non-noetherian algebra: a polynomial differential algebra, that is
> polynomials
> in x_1,...,x_n and all of their formal derivatives. So this is a
Hi Emmanuel,
On 2020-10-28, Emmanuel Charpentier wrote:
> Nope. This syntactic sugar is provided by `Maxima`'s and `Mathematica`'s
> readers, but not by Sage preparser.
Would it be nice (and easy) to have in Sage? What prevents the preparser
from understanding "!"?
Best regards,
Simon
--
On Nov 29, Simon King wrote:
Hi Reimundo,
On 2020-06-17, 'Reimundo Heluani' via sage-support
wrote:
Is there an implementation of such a thing as in the title?
TL;DR: Yes. Singular does have these capabilities. I recall that these
were comfortably wrapped in SageMath, but as it turns out:
Hi Reimundo,
On 2020-06-17, 'Reimundo Heluani' via sage-support
wrote:
> Is there an implementation of such a thing as in the title?
TL;DR: Yes. Singular does have these capabilities. I recall that these
were comfortably wrapped in SageMath, but as it turns out: They aren't.
Note to
10 matches
Mail list logo
