On Wednesday, 25 August 2021 at 03:19:15 UTC-7 dim...@gmail.com wrote: > The main problem of pynac is not that the present setup makes it hard to > work on symbolic issues, but that Sage depends on it at all. > Aren't these separate issues? It may be the case that we should switch symbolic engine (which is a big job!), but without a candidate that's not something we can plan on right now. So, it looks to me we're bound to pynac for the foreseeable future. Since sage is the sole user of pynac, any work on pynac will happen in the context of sage. From that perspective, putting the code itself in the sage source seems to make sense. Doing so doesn't preclude throwing it out later (although it might grow other dependencies, making that harder).
So, perhaps we should make a quick assessment if moving to another symbolic engine is something that's on the horizon? Sympy has grown ... would that be sufficiently high-performance? (Sage has changed symbolic engines before and it is a huge pain. It will cause all kinds of incompatible changes to happen that are very hard to patch up -- and patching some of them will be very unattractive because backwards-compatibility changes tend to ruin the conceptual consistency of the new solution) -- 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/a45b37bd-6176-431c-b792-b3b272ea1c6en%40googlegroups.com.
