Open dlfivefifty opened 5 years ago
Hmm. That’s a good point. One thing I was thinking is that if one wants rationals they can just use //
but that is a bit uglier syntactically and I’d have to make a new Rational
type that works with SymExpr
s anyways, so maybe it’s best to just default to a symbolic rational.
As you can see, I haven’t worked on this package in many moons, but I’m planning to dive back in soon with some major overhauls, so I’ll add this to my list.
I would expect it to symbolically represent rationals.