On Sunday, September 29, 2024 at 12:15:04 AM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote: On 29 September 2024 01:50:39 BST, Matthias Koeppe <matthia...@gmail.com> wrote: >On Saturday, September 28, 2024 at 5:21:56 PM UTC-7 oscar.j....@gmail.com >wrote: > >On Sun, 29 Sept 2024 at 00:22, Matthias Koeppe <matthia...@gmail.com> >wrote: >> On Saturday, September 28, 2024 at 12:28:30 PM UTC-7 axio...@yahoo.de >wrote: >> >> I could also imagine to have three layers: >> >> * a core distribution with absolutely minimal dependencies and only >dependencies which have proved stable on all supported platforms >> >> This is exactly sagemath-categories. It has absolutely minimal >dependencies
So it's not minimal, as it contains sagemath-objects When one talks about dependencies in this context, one means the recursive dependencies on that are not just other Sage distribution packages. The dependencies of both *sagemath-objects* and *sagemath-categories* are *gmpy2* (and its non-Python dependency libraries gmp, mpfr, mpc) and *memory_allocator* and nothing else. >I think all of these options are much less expressive than the current >choice. The current choice is confusing, for a number of reasons: * as it invokes wrong associations: "oh, it's category theory, but with more algebra - it must be Abelian categories there. Sage does Abelian categories, wow!" Hardly. It uses the word "categories" in the same way that "sage.categories" does. * the name does not stand out at all from the rest of distributions to indicate that it is something minimal/core/base and contained (almost) everywhere else * it arbitrarily names the distribution after one of its parts (sage.categories), and ignores the rest of its content. No, it's not arbitrary. It's named from the viewpoint of users: *sagemath-categories *does provide the full set of Sage's categories. It's suitable for users to explore Sage's categories and their relationships. The distribution does not provide the concrete implementations of the parents/elements that lie in these categories -- because often that depends on additional libraries. The other contents of *sagemath-categories* are provided in similar spirit. For example, there are the Function objects from sage.functions -- but only in a generic, dispatching role. Actual implementations of most functions depend on various libraries. Likewise, polynomials are there only in a generic implementation; the specialized implementations and higher-level functionality (e.g., Gröbner bases) are provided by other distributions as they depend on various libraries. >Anything named *-minimal* could describe pretty much any arbitrary choice. >(It's "minimal" for *what*?) A minimal element in the poset of distributions, obviously. That's hardly what people would expect. Perhaps sagemath-foundations is better? No. "Foundations" can also mean anything to everyone. Should we hold a vote? No, a vote is unlikely to be useful until more people have gained much more experience with the design of the modularization and the contents of its distributions. And for sure doing any such renaming games will be outside of the scope of the PR in question. https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36380 should not wait for it. -- 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/5fc801ca-70b3-4739-9023-0468822c0eabn%40googlegroups.com.
