On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 10:41 PM, Gary Furnish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > " > Make it so sympy also runs on top of GiNaC. This will force the creation > of a clear interface specification. > " > > If there is going to be a clear interface spec, then we should go and > make a clear interface spec so that anyone, not just GiNaC can > potentially conform to it. Perhaps this is the best long term > solution? > > My symbolics code is already GPLv2+ so fixing the headers is just a > technicality.
Exactly. Especially if you believe you can be way faster than ginac. It'd be really awesome. Maybe William has some ideas how to do it the best, I think it just needs to be done iteratively. We will have 2 production cores soon -- pynac and sympy. Then there is sympycore and your symbolics, so that should give us enough data to see what all the cores have in common and what is different. BTW, one important warning: ginac and sympycore are missing assumptions and sympy only has very trivial ones, like positive, negative, integer, even, odd, etc. This is really important for any nontrivial things in a CAS and I changes to the core may be needed. I really want to have assumptions in sympy first before saying -- yes, this approach to do the core is the best. Ondrej --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
