Re: Proposal to extend primes()

[Jeroen Demeyer <jdemeyer@cage.ugent.be>]

On 2016-03-16 10:32, Karim Belabas wrote:
> To save two keystrokes (the [ and ]) at the expense of a (IMHO) more cryptic
> interface ?
Well, I personally find primes([a,b]) more cryptic while primes(a,b) 
looks more natural for me. Also, I quite like the idea of being able to 
write primes(,n) for all primes <= n.

But you are right that there no fundamental reason to prefer primes(a,b) 
over primes([a,b]).

> Currently a single argument describes the interval (as in e.g. polrealroots),
> and I had thought about adding another optional one to specify an
> arithmetic progression, e.g.
>
>    primes([a,b], Mod(c,q))

That would certainly be useful mathematically. But again, I would prefer 
to see primes(a, b, Mod(c,q)) instead of primes([a,b], Mod(c,q)).