I for one think we should keep sympify() (and the S() shortcut). sympify() gives a nice character to SymPy, as a function named after it. I certainly don't see why you would want to delete sympify() and just keep S(). How is that better than just keeping sympify() but always using S()? And besides, 'sympify' is almost guaranteed to be unique to any namespace it is imported into, whereas this is likely not the case for 'S'.
One thing I think we do need to do though is to make sympify() more prevalent in the docs. I have seen more than one instance on the internet where someone was trying to write their own equation parser for SymPy because they didn't know about the existence of the sympify() function. Aaron Meurer On Dec 6, 2010, at 4:29 PM, Robert Kern wrote: > On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 17:27, Christophe BAL <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hello, >> I think that S is usefull but "mystic" for new user. >> >> Instead of sympify, you could propose the name cvToSympy alias "convert to >> sympy". It's longer but easier to understand. > > Contracting "convert" to "cv" is *not* easy to understand. > > -- > Robert Kern > > "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless > enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as > though it had an underlying truth." > -- Umberto Eco -- 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.
