I think changing this will break tons of code in the wild. Isnt it best
make a new "solve_new" and then leave solve be (maybe with a deprecation
warning. You could call it `solve_equations` or something.

Jason
moorepants.info
+01 530-601-9791


On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 11:45 PM Oscar Benjamin <[email protected]>
wrote:

> On Thu, 3 Mar 2022 at 20:28, Aaron Meurer <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 3, 2022 at 8:28 AM Chris Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Although the dict=True or set=True will give a standard output, can we
> at least unify the case for when variables are given so we always get a
> list of one or more dictionaries? So the above would be `[{x: -sqrt(y)},
> {x: sqrt(y)}]` and `[{x: y}]`, respectively. This would then make `solve`
> always give a list of a) values for a univariate expression, b) a list of
> one or more dictionaries for every other case.  (Case (a) will give a list
> of dictionaries if `dict=True`.)
> >
> > Changing the output type could break code that solves a specific
> > equation. I am doubtful whether any users actually understand the
> > output type behavior of solve without the dict=True flag. So
> > personally I think we should clean it up. We already recommend using
> > dict=True to get consistent output types, and this would only affect
> > users who aren't doing that.
>
> It would be much better if solve always worked like that but obviously
> that's not a backwards compatible change and I'm not sure what would
> break. I don't think that the type of the output should depend on the
> number of solutions although it could depend on the type of the
> arguments (e.g a single equation vs a list of equations). At the
> moment the type of the output can depend on the equations themselves
> which is wildly awkward:
>
> In [3]: solve([x-1], [x])
> Out[3]: {x: 1}
>
> In [4]: solve([x**2-1], [x])
> Out[4]: [(-1,), (1,)]
>
> The ideal output for solve is absolutely a list of dicts though and it
> would be good to make that the default at least when given a list of
> equations. I guarantee that a lot of notebooks or other little bits of
> code will depend on each of these random special cases though.
>
> --
> Oscar
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sympy" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAHVvXxROqs0CpGmSX2%3Dk8xJgTos9FPpP1x0GYP0aHCdiYErDnA%40mail.gmail.com
> .
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sympy" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sympy/CAP7f1AhaE9Z1H9GUo1M2Ag5yb0v28uG-wUGRGA%3DuC2TTR%2BycNA%40mail.gmail.com.

Reply via email to