7 | | I'm also against providing options to modify the numbering. There's a good reason why `RX=PolynomialRing(R,'x',n)` is allowed: it's clearly desirable to make "a polynomial ring in n variables" in various settings. Sage requires names for these variables, but specifying n names is bothersome if you don't care about the names. Hence the indexing. which agrees with what `RX.gen(i)` does. If you do care what your variable names are called, it's easy to specify a list of names. All kinds of possibilities exist: `["x_%s"%s for i in range(n)]`, `["x^(%s)"%s for i in range(1,n+1)]` etc. It's much better to teach people how to get full customizibility than to give them one more option to discover, which will probably not meet their needs if the develop further. |

| 7 | I'm also against providing options to modify the numbering. There's a good reason why `RX=PolynomialRing(R,'x',n)` is allowed: it's clearly desirable to make "a polynomial ring in n variables" in various settings. Sage requires names for these variables, but specifying n names is bothersome if you don't care about the names. Hence the indexing. which agrees with what `RX.gen(i)` does. If you do care what your variable names are called, it's easy to specify a list of names. All kinds of possibilities exist: `["x_%s"%s for i in range(n)]`, `["x^(%s)"%s for i in range(1,n+1)]` etc. It's much better to teach people how to get full customizibility than to give them one more option to discover, which will probably not meet their needs if they develop further. |