Ronan Lamy wrote: > Le vendredi 25 février 2011 à 16:26 +0545, Chris Smith a écrit : >> Alexey U. Gudchenko wrote: >>> 25.02.2011 08:59, Alexey U. Gudchenko пишет: >>> >>> Conversely, internal calling of series method therefore must be with >>> option (..., something_hack=True) if it options is needed. >>> >> >> If you mean that something internal wants the unshifted series, then >> yes sudo=True should be used and the O term removed. This would be >> the same thing as getting the shifted series, removing the O term and >> doing the substitution yourself of `s.removeO().subs(x, x-x0)`. >> >> So if there are no objections, I'll commit this in about 5 hours. > > Wait. I don't think that adding yet another option is a good idea, > particularly when its purpose is to choose between two bad > workarounds. And 'sudo' is a bad name anyway.
Aaron and I were discussing keywords that basically mean "let me do this, I know what I'm doing" and he (I think lightheartedly) pointed out that in unix, "sudo" is used for such operations: "super user do" = "do what I'm telling you, I accept all consequences; I know what I'm doing." It's non-sympy enough to draw attention to itself as something to not be used without reading what it means. If you have an alternative, please put it forward for discussion. As to adding another option....what's the alternative? We don't want a series without an O() (that would suggest that it is exact) and we can't represent it accurately with the machinery of the existing O(). So until we do, these commits have fixed a lot, raised issues for future work, and hopefully haven't broken anything. What harm is there in fixing the existing status even if it doesn't bring that status up to where we want it to be? /c -- 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.
