On Feb 22, 12:10 pm, smichr <[email protected]> wrote: > One thing that is helpful is if you copy and paste your actual input > and output so it can be verified.
That was copy-and-pasted. For some reason it's behaving differently on different machines. > BTW, before you spend a lot of time making these changes, I think it > would be good to discuss first whether we want this behavior to be > standard. Do we really prefer -1*(3 + 4*x) to -3 - 4*x? Because if we > can't reach a consensus the work will be in vain. I was under the impression from reading back that there was a consensus, and the only reason it hadn't been done was the nightmare tangle of tests it breaks. In any case, I need this behavior, so I'll be doing it for myself regardless. I'd like to contribute it back to the community, but if I end just using my patched version in my application, then it still won't have been in vain. > > Also, when I gave this a try I got stuck at the examples in the > solving recurrence relationships, as I recall. I believe I left a note > in Mul.flatten just before the distribution step as I recall. > Thanks for the heads up. Is this in a branch of your repo? In the master all I saw just before the distribution step was "Now we are done". Although I suppose that could be a message of surrender ;-) -- 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.
