On Thu, 04 Jan 2007 15:43:53 -0800, David Harvey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Perhaps William Stein is well-placed to offer an opinion on which of(a) and (b) would be easier, since he knows the SAGE codebase very well (!), and he has plenty of experience programming with PARI too.I've never programmed PARI, so it's difficult for me to tell. And Bill has never programmed SAGE, so it's difficult for him to compare too.
It's crucial to do both (a) PARI integration and (b) native wrapping. This is somewhat analogous to: (a) build PARI to use GMP (b) build native SAGE types on top of the GMP types. It's important to do both. David Harvey's argument that the Flint build is currently not very robust is a good argument for do a minimal version of (b) first, e.g., make a FlintZZ ring and implement PolynomialRing(FlintZZ) with just some functionality, test it out, then work on something more ambitious once Flint gets out there and build tested on many platforms. Doing a minimal (b) is very safe. William --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
