On Apr 23, 2011, at 7:11 PM, Chris Smith wrote: > Vinzent Steinberg wrote: >> On 22 Apr., 16:53, "Chris Smith" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I don't think we should get hung up on the fact that a set of >>> solutions should be returned as a literal set. How that set gets >>> represented/presented is just an interface issue. I don't see >>> anything wrong with presenting the set as elements in a list. The >>> list representation also allows for unambiguous, non-redundant >>> representation of the symbols and their values. And look at how easy >>> it is to make a replacement dictionary from a list as compared to a >>> dictionary...and I challenge anyone to try do the same with a set in >>> as compact a fashion: >> >>> h[4] >>> l=[(x,y),(1,2),(3,4)] >> >> You could use as well set([...]) here. There is no reason IMHO to use >> a list. > > In the list, that is a literal x and y -- symbols. That's what makes the list > less noisy: you get the symbols once, right at the start, and then all the > solutions. The dictionary is just too busy with redundant symbols. Easy to > use, hard to look at.
I would argue that it's easier to look at, especially if you have a lot of symbols. Of course, it's more important for the data structure to be useful than for it to be nice to look at (in which case I still would argue for the dictionary, since you can pass it directly to subs). Aaron Meurer > > /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.
