Le dimanche 22 juillet 2012 à 21:57 +0200, [email protected] a écrit : > > So the way forward is to choose between (I may be missing alternative > > options): > > > > - say that sympy will never support "named objects that must have args" > > - use Symbol when we need name strings > > - redefine what an atom is and correct each failing algorithm one by one > > > > The first one is just giving up on implementing something that is > > obviously useful. > > Actually the first option is not bad if we give up on obj.func(*obj.args) == > obj > This is already done for Symbol. We just need to admit that some > objects (the leafs) will contain information that will not be in args.
Well, obj.func(*obj.args) == obj never made sense for Atoms, so we would be clarifying what the real situation is rather than giving up any useful invariant. I'm not sure what should be done about named objects with symbolic parts (like MatrixSymbol), though. > So, maybe before proceeding with arguing about the technical details > (I am sure that I am missing many of them) we can try to list any > other options. For the moment I see only the three mentioned above. > Any other ideas? > The second option is clearly hackish, because a Symbol has a name but *is* not a name. The correct™ variant of this idea would be to create sympy objects that actually *are* name and use them. -- 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.
