> I also prefer the syntax:
>
> f({x:2,y:3}) or the implied syntax f(dict(x=2,y=2))
>
> as opposed to
>
> f(x=2,y=3)
I am with you here, both the f(dict(x=2,y=2)) and f(x=2,y=3) are bad
as they treat x and y as strings, not symbols. Do we want to have
subs and __call__ look at the keys of the dics it gets and make sure
they are not strings? We could raise an exception and print a nice
warning like "you have used strings (x,y) in a dict, you probably
meant to use symbols, which will require the syntax: {x:3,y:4}"
Otherwise I worry that users will be tricked by this subtlety.
I still might want to revisit the .bindings idea later, but let's just
focus on this part of it right now.
> So let's implement it. I am sorry Lance it has taken so long to
> discuss this, I think noone has realized all the possible problems
> that arised.
Yes, this was way more subtle than I had realized initially.
Also, just to be clear, we are NOT going to allow f(1,2) for now, correct?
Brian
> Thanks,
> Ondrej
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy" 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/sympy?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
