On Wed, Oct 2, 2024 at 12:43 AM Matthias Koeppe <matthiaskoe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > 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.
You forgot polynomials (and thus quite a bit of sage.rings), and few other, unrelated to the Sage typing system, things you put there. > > > >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. They do provide a random subset of concrete implementations - e.g. polynomials. > > 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. Do you think that "categories" conveys the meaning of "import it everywhere" better than "minimal"? > > Perhaps sagemath-foundations is better? > > > No. "Foundations" can also mean anything to everyone. At least it does not mis-specify what's there, whereas "categories" certainly does. > > 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. I don't think it's wise to subject people to more messy misnamed things than it is absolutely necessary. Once people are used to bad designs and wrong names (assuming there is anyone left working with them!), it's pretty hard to make changes. > > 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. #36380 is first of all waiting for, requested by more than one reviewer, splitting off the part related to brial - as the latter is a really urgent and unrelated to sagemath-categories thing. Once it's split off, we can weigh the merits of the proposed design easier. > > -- > 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. -- 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/CAAWYfq2b295uzvfKmTSNT1dUA1uLFHRUW1T6%2BpDYxB5%2BEePn7Q%40mail.gmail.com.
