On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 9:14:32 AM UTC-7, Nils Bruin wrote: > > On Tuesday, October 20, 2020 at 8:39:54 AM UTC-7, David Roe wrote: >> >> I agree with Nathan and Frédéric about backward compatibility. The >> original question was about whether to proceed with creating a >> GenuineRealField object. I'm in favor of progress in that direction! But >> I'd also like to see what that object looks like before making a decision >> about changing the behavior of RR and RealField. >> >> I agree as well: it's already possible to start writing AbstractRealField > or GenuineRealField: just put them somewhere in their own module. Once the > code has been worked out and it's clear in what way they are being used we > can look at how inconvenienced people are by having to import the > functionality. If that is significant, we can look at where to place the > routines in the global scope and if there is existing functionality that > needs to be deprecated in order to make room for it. Don't start breaking > compatibility until you have something concrete that allows an assessment > of the costs and benefits [...] >
I agree. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/56ad6138-92ef-4a55-a986-e747550bdd16o%40googlegroups.com.
