>> My fear would be that at some point there is a request not to use symbolics in some module, because Lisp is hard to install on some system.
>That should not happen. Modularization is downstream to the sage library. Yes, we are restructuring some parts of the sage library to fit with modularization. But modularization should never be an obstacle in developing the sage library. If it ever be, the sage community might drop the modularization project. We already witness multiple instances where the modularization project is cited as a reason not to merge certain PRs that only touch sage-the-library. How does this reality fit this view? I meant the sage library as a collection of mathematical modules. If a certain module did not but somehow would develop to rely on the mathematical functionality of another module, then the design of the modularization should embrace the development. The splitting of the sage library in the present modularization reflects the present reality of the separation of different mathematical parts of the sage library. But of course the reality may change in the future as we develop the sage library. Then the modularization should reflect the change, not block the change. However this is all about the future, unrelated to the present disputed PRs, including yours. -- 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/09cb220f-6154-40d9-af09-3b22921c2852n%40googlegroups.com.
